Just a machine

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How complex does a machine have to be in order to exhibit consciousness?

I would certainly say more complex than any machine humans have so far created, but the simple fact that we cannot create a conscious machine does not rule out the possibility that we will be able to create one in the future, does it?

Make a machine complex enough, with the right sort of connections and the right sort of inputs, and it will become conscious in the same way that we are. There is no mystical barrier to prevent it.

All I can say is that we dont really know what is consciousness in the first place. If we knew it, we could reach an agreement on its nature.

 

[RandFan]

Make a machine complex enough, with the right sort of connections and the right sort of inputs, and it will become conscious in the same way that we are. There is no mystical barrier to prevent it.

I'm not convinced of this. I personally don't se how consciousness is simply a matter of complexity. There may yet be something we don't understand. Not something metaphysical. It could be biologically based and therefore not simply replicable through silicon (semi-conductive materials) and or copper. Consciousness might not be substrate neutral. To assert that you are wrong art would be to argue from ignorance. I'm not doing that. I'm simply stating that there is not enough data at this time for me to come to a conclusion.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're quite right, you can't say that this can't happen, and you can't say that it can, without more information. I strongly suspect that it can, but without evidence I won't know for sure.

 

[Gestahl]

All I can say is that we dont really know what is consciousness in the first place. If we knew it, we could reach an agreement on its nature.

That's because consciousness is knowing itself... the experience of being itself. You can no more know what consciousness is than than a computer could completely know how it operated... by the very fact that nothing can completely swallow its own tail of self-understanding. There is always the element that allows the self-understanding that cannot be understood by itself.

But that's OK. Everyone's neurons will continue to chase their own tails, and I am sure many lovely books will continue to be written about it.

 

[BillyJoe]

You can no more know what consciousness is than than a computer could completely know how it operated.

But we could come to know it more completely than we do now.
You are not suggesting that we give up?

BJ

 

[kuroyume0161]

That's because consciousness is knowing itself... the experience of being itself. You can no more know what consciousness is than than a computer could completely know how it operated... by the very fact that nothing can completely swallow its own tail of self-understanding. There is always the element that allows the self-understanding that cannot be understood by itself.

But that's OK. Everyone's neurons will continue to chase their own tails, and I am sure many lovely books will continue to be written about it.

Are you saying that we can know nothing of consciousness because it requires introspection? That is a falsehood. We can observe consciousness through other conscious beings (i.e.: other homo sapiens). We can also study the development and stages of consciousness through studies of a variety of animalia of varying degrees thereof. There are certainly tests that could be and have been performed to determine awareness, analytical problem solving, and retention of information.

Let's put it this way. Can you give ballpark, approximate figures about what you think (and possibly what experimental data suggests) are the consciousness levels of certain other animals (chimpanzees, dogs, buffalo, gnats) comparative to one another or to humans? If you can even consider these levels, then we can know about consciousness. It is an effible quality that most likely has effible (and measurable) quantities. We just don't know much about them - considering that we've only been studying the matter for less than a century and we're talking about the most complex system in any organism, that makes proper sense.

 

[Beerina]

is somehow less authentic than some hypothetical thing that functions without any mechanism by which it functions.

At the core I have a problem with this suggestion. I would claim something that functions without any mechanism cannot exist.

In other words, a "spirit" would still have to operate according to "spirit physics". I cannot conceive of some kind of mind/soul thing that, when you bombard it with neutrons (for a laugh) does not start splitting apart into component pieces.

 

[Robin]

Re: Re: Just a machine

At the core I have a problem with this suggestion. I would claim something that functions without any mechanism cannot exist.

In other words, a "spirit" would still have to operate according to "spirit physics". I cannot conceive of some kind of mind/soul thing that, when you bombard it with neutrons (for a laugh) does not start splitting apart into component pieces.

Or bombard it with the "spiritual" equivalent of neutrons.

But yes, proposing that the mind exists in some other, non-physical realm solves no philosophical problem.

 

[roger]

I'm not convinced of this. I personally don't se how consciousness is simply a matter of complexity. There may yet be something we don't understand. Not something metaphysical. It could be biologically based and therefore not simply replicable through silicon (semi-conductive materials) and or copper. Consciousness might not be substrate neutral. To assert that you are wrong art would be to argue from ignorance. I'm not doing that. I'm simply stating that there is not enough data at this time for me to come to a conclusion.

Could you expand on that? Based on the assumption that chemistry, and thus biology is computable, you seem to be ascribing (potentially) a physical ontology to consciousness. Meaning, I can write a simulation of fire in a computer. It's not real in the sense that there are not really hot gases composed of specific atoms eminating from a heated surface.

 

[c4ts]

Who, ID'ers? They're the ones always comparing humanity to watches and jumbo jets instead of naturally occuring phenomena. I don't think there are that many pundits of ID on these boards, but I'm sure they would be the ones loudly proclaiming that man is a machine, because that would have to imply a designer.

 

[Gestahl]

Are you saying that we can know nothing of consciousness because it requires introspection? That is a falsehood. We can observe consciousness through other conscious beings (i.e.: other homo sapiens). We can also study the development and stages of consciousness through studies of a variety of animalia of varying degrees thereof. There are certainly tests that could be and have been performed to determine awareness, analytical problem solving, and retention of information.

Not at all. We can certainly know some things about consciousness a priori by the very fact we are consciousness, and some things via observation of other things that are conscious. However, we cannot know how the internal mind works, because the very thoughts you would use to do so are predicated on that internal mind, and the observations you make would be of the things that give rise to the internal mind, and not the internal mind itself. There are abstractive levels between nuerons/brain and internal perception that I do not believe can be understood or observed. Nor do I think we can completely understand the universe, because of the simple fact we are constrained by the fact that we exist within it.

Let's put it this way. Can you give ballpark, approximate figures about what you think (and possibly what experimental data suggests) are the consciousness levels of certain other animals (chimpanzees, dogs, buffalo, gnats) comparative to one another or to humans? If you can even consider these levels, then we can know about consciousness. It is an effible quality that most likely has effible (and measurable) quantities. We just don't know much about them - considering that we've only been studying the matter for less than a century and we're talking about the most complex system in any organism, that makes proper sense.

I understand what you are saying here, and I agree that some things can be known. But what consciousness is, beyond a metaphor, cannot be known, because consciousness *is* knowing, and cannot be perceived because it *is* perception.

Think of it this way. We can approach our search from the physical side, and learn all about the physics, chemistry, biology, and structure of the brain. This will not tell us what consciousness is, only the substrate on which it operates. Or, we can approach it from the mental side, and learn all about psychology, memory, knowledge, logic, emotions, etc. But those are the products of consciousness, not consciousness itself.

Ah, but can we not study the interaction of the two with conscious, reporting witnesses? We can and have. In fact, we have seen people without just about every part of cognition we can think of, but all they can report is that they are not conscious themselves of the missing parts. Consciousness doesn't seem to lend itself to examination of it's black box.

The only other possibility I see are mind-altering drugs, and the direct perception of the resulting changes in your internal mind. But let me tell you, it doesn't work. I can tell you the course of my consciousness was fundamentally altered, but I can't even explain, to you or myself, *how* my consciousness was changed except by vague metaphor. We can know exactly the mechanism by which the the drug acts on neurotransmitters and receptor proteins, but how such a simple alteration translates to such highly altered consciousness is impossible to start to fathom.

By what possible other way are we to figure it out?