Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Can man mechanically recreate consciousness?

Rate this topic


LadyAttis

Recommended Posts

What you don't seem to realize, is that although it was Stephen who asked you to provide these sources, other people are looking on as well.  So although you are of the opinion that Stephen would just blow off whatever source information you did provide, others may look at it and come to the same conclusion as you.  As it is, the above statement appears to be a cop-out.  Your credibility on this position goes beyond your disagreement with Stephen.

Actually, I saw it coming. I just didn't do anything, primarily because of the nature of Stephen's request, but also because I can only connect to the internet over the wireless LAN at college. At college I don't have all the string theory books with me and it was a real trouble to actually remember at home that I need to quote something from them, let alone what. I'm a busy college student with lots of things I have on my mind. Besides, I didn't at first really trouble with it. If you read Stephen's post, you'll know why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 172
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With great fanfare, and with the haughtiness of a pretentious fraud, Source finally provides a quote:

First, as incredible as it is that I actually have to remind Source, he made the claim: "Physicists who write those books often mention how quantuum mechanics and classic mechanics contradict each other." After five postings full of naught but bluster, when he finally does provide a quote in support, the quote, in fact, is about GENERAL RELATIVITY and quantum mechanics, not CLASSICAL MECHANICS and quantum mechanics, as he had claimed. At this point, when Source attempts to pass off a quote that so clearly does not apply, and when he does so in such a phony and haughty manner in what he says to and about me, I can only conclude that he is not just clueless, but dishonest as well.

Second, just to give Brian Greene, the author, his just due, his comment about general relativity and quantum mechanics was not that they contradict each other, but that they are "mutually incompatible." What Greene means by this, if one actually reads and comprehends what Greene writes, is that, IN THE CONTEXT OF STRING THEORY, where "the equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, WHEN COMBINED," begin to shake, rattle, and gush ..." As Greene states, "WITHIN THIS NEW FRAMEWORK, general relativity and quantum mechanics require one another." [Caps mine.] Greene is talking about the difficulties involved in combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, and he is doing so specifically in the framework of string theory.

As I have said repeatedly, knowledgeable physicists know that true physical theories have a domain of applicability -- a context -- to which they apply, and the fact that classical physics applied to the quantum realm does not work, or that special relativity applied to gravitation does not work, implies no contradiction at all between these theories. They are each true, in the physical, and metaphysical, context to which they apply.

The reason that this issue is so important, and the reason that I did not want Source's misrepresentations to go unchallenged, is not just because of the physics, but because this is a philosophical issue as well. Objectivism holds all truth as being contextual, and knowledge we have gained is not contradicted by something different because that knowledge does not pertain in a wider context. Peikoff has an excellent discussion of all this in OPAR, and he gives a scientific example (discovery of blood types) for illustration. In part, he concludes,

"The appearance of a contradiction between new knowledge and old derives from a single source: context dropping. If the researchers had decided to view their initial discovery as an out-of-context absolute; if they were to declare -- in effect, as a matter of dogma: 'A bloods will always be compatible, regardless of altered circumstances'; then of course the new factor discovered would plunge them into contradiction...."

The fact is, special relativity does not contradict classical physics; it applies in a context that is wider than classical physics. And quantum mechanics does not contradict classical physics; it applies in a context that classical physics was not developed to address. And general relativity does not contradict classical physics, for the same reasons as above. It does not matter to me that Source cannot grasp this, but the issue is important enough that more reasonable members of the forum should be aware of these facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, let me once again thank you for the time you take to make these wonderful posts.

You're very welcome.

I have learned so much from you;  it is an intellectual debt I'll never be able to repay.

I appreciate the sentiment, but do not sell yourself short. Sometimes a single insight can matter for a lifetime, and thereby repay any debt that you incur. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your claims of my dishonesty are exaggerated and false. My manner was such not in order to hide what you call phony quote but because your attitude towards what was an honest error on my part was such that it assumed that I was being intentionally dishonest and malevolent - a situation in which I would have never hoped to get anything.

The reason I originally stated that the authors talk about the contradiction between classical physics and quantuum mechanics was a result of a confusion on my part. I read about deriving the law of radiation from the laws of classical physics and from the laws of quantuum physics and the two wielded different results (or contradictory, as I said) - as you may have seen me mention several times in my previous posts.

When I saw this, I remembered string theory books mentioning the contradictions that the books mention (the results of classical physics, as is evident, contradict experimental results and results given by quantuum mechanics and I mean contradict in a sense that they provide different results), however, I must have forgotten that the books mention general relativity (not classical physics) and quantuum mechanics and as a result I thought I had finally found where the theories clash, so to speak. I read string theory books about two years earlier and I didn't look it up later.

Now, I copied the quote quite hastily and I didn't even notice that I was talking all the time about classical physics and the books about general relativity. And that is the whole nature of my error. You apparently like to assume that I was deliberatly twisting the words of an author (for what reason I would do that I have no idea), hence your attitude. Moreover, you are probably thinking that this is another one of those "cop-outs." Well, think what you will. I, on the other hand, know that this was all an honest mistake on my part and if I've learned anything is that I have to be more careful in the future.

So OK then, forget about string theory books. What I'd like to know is what then is the nature of the contradiction of a result for the radiation emission of a black body when laws of classical physics are used as against the result for the same when the laws of quantuum physics are used?

If the contradiction arises from context-dropping, as in laws of classical physics can't be applied on the quantuum level, then my original point (if you remember my reply to LadyAttis) is valid. The point was to explain to her the following:

She complained about Peikoff's claims that the results given by some physicists are invalid (my guess is that she was referring to his disagreement with the physicists who advocate causless subatomic behavior, p.128). What I tried to say, although I could not have said it this way before the "conversation" we were having, was that that is so because whichever theory is being used to arrive at such conclusion, is being used out of context (and for this formulation I have, as much as I'm still astounded by this fact, you to thank for, along with my recent discoveries I made reading OPAR). Note that I'm saying this under two assumptions: that the contradiction between quantuum mechanics and classical physics in regard to radiation of black body is that of dropping context, and my original assumption that the nature of that contradiction would be the same in the case of the theory from which the conclusion about causlesness in subatomic behavior is derived from. (The former I've mentioned earlier).

However, if the answer to my question (stated two paragraphs earlier) is that the contradiction arises because either classical physics or quantuum mechanics or both are flawed, then the former assumption changes, but my argument remains valid. This was my original thought - that either or both of the theories are flawed, and it was fuelled by my thinking that superstring theory books say exactly the same thing. I was convinced I was right about this, because of such a simple error I made. Hence my thinking that you were just toying with me for some reason I could not fathom.

This brings me to the next point of this post, and that is that I owe you an apology. I said things which now, knowing that you actually had a valid point, would not repeat and I don't even think them. They were all a result of what seems even now to me as a trivial error. In fact, I have to thank you for pointing this error out for me in such a dramatic fashion. But please, if there is a next time, try not to assume that I am intentionally trying to fool someone or trying to undermine some principle which is valid within proper context. I would never want to do something so vile. My confusions are generally resutls of some such errors as was this one and sooner or later, in my process of learning, I find out what the errors are and I correct them. Usually this process doesn't turn out to be as dramatic as it did this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source, now that you see your error, I request you do two things:

First, in regard to this post:

The reason I "argue" is that he has not shown any of the qualities your post implies. If he is really so old and wise, then either he is becoming senile or he just likes to pick on all the know-it-alls or twentysomethings who just finished Physics II. I wouldn't trust him on his word no matter who he is and where he retired from. I want something more substantial than that, and all he has done until now were attempts to nullify the credibility of everything I said.

Instead of Stephen being senile (!!! :)) it appears that you have been juvenile. Please retract this post in its entirety in order to save me the trouble of being strongly juvenile at you.

Second, offer a heartfelt apology to Stephen. Your initial error may have been trivial, but you have persisted in this error so obstinantly and in complete ignorance of whom you were pressing this error upon. Not only that, but your obstinance also caused you to make highly abusive and insulting remarks toward Stephen.

Now as I said before, I'm sure he will never write a post like this to you, as an issue of manners. That's why it falls upon me, or other users, to make sure you do the necessary apologizing. If you trivialize this issue, "F you, I'm right.... Oh oops I made a silly error, hehe never mind", or if you don't offer this apology, I will not respond to any of your posts anymore, unless I have something bad to say. And I'll usually try to find something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Source, now that you see your error, I request you do two things:

First, in regard to this post:

Instead of Stephen being senile (!!! :D) it appears that you have been juvenile. Please retract this post in its entirety in order to save me the trouble of being strongly juvenile at you.

Second, offer a heartfelt apology to Stephen. Your initial error may have been trivial, but you have persisted in this error so obstinantly and in complete ignorance of whom you were pressing this error upon. Not only that, but your obstinance also caused you to make highly abusive and insulting remarks toward Stephen.

Now as I said before, I'm sure he will never write a post like this to you, as an issue of manners. That's why it falls upon me, or other users, to make sure you do the necessary apologizing. If you trivialize this issue, "F you, I'm right.... Oh oops I made a silly error, hehe never mind", or if you don't offer this apology, I will not respond to any of your posts anymore, unless I have something bad to say. And I'll usually try to find something.

I already apologized. In the last paragraph of my last post.

I also think I made it clear that I don't think that Stephen is going senile, or that he likes to pick on know-it-all twentysomething's. The only thing I remarked about was his initial attitude towards me. There was no way for me to see where he was going with the posts, and my utter confusion about his request to quote an author when he at the same time said that it would make no difference, was entirely honest. I really had the impression that my legs were being pulled.

And I'm not trivializing the issue. The error was silly, but the result was not. I'm not even trying to imply a "never mind" about what happened.

I'm still trying to understand what exactly happened and why things ended the way they did. When I look at the triviality of my error, I am at a lack of words to describe the difference in proportion between that error and the argument that happened between myself and Stephen. And I dare not, before I understand these proportions to the full, to even try to fathom the consequences of some other, major philosophical error. It is hardly believable to me, especially at this time that just about anyone imagines they could so deliberatly just start philosophizing from whichever point they enter the field of philosophy, without knowing the full proportions to which their seemingly innocent little words can be extended when challenged.

Many things have been brought home to me here, and many things I did not understand were explained. The consequences of a philosophical error have never been shown more clearly to me in my entire life.

I regret, as I mentioned, that it had to happen this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that we are conscious. Objectively, yes, but subjectively, too. I can sit here in my little mind, in my little body, observing all the things that happen. I am a subjectively conscious person. I think I can call this subjective consciousness my soul.

Now, if man designed artificial computers with a higher and higher intelligence, modifying it so that it displayed all human reactions and emotions, to the point where it appeared identical as a human, would it have a subjective consciousness, just like you do? If so, where, along that process of building the machine, would this consciousness, or soul, enter the hardware?

May peace rest with all,

Charlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't. Monkeys can learn to complete puzzles and work math problems, but that doesn't mean they have the ability to reason. They learn it by mimicking. Computers can mimick whatever you want them to, but it doesn't mean that they are conscious.

Right, so are you saying that man is incapable of producing a machine that can reason by itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is rough, please correct me, but i'll give it a shot.

Computers become more like men, because men are programming them. We continue to attempt to create an autonomous intelligence. When you ask if computers will ever be able to reason on their own, the wuestion is yes, and no.

They will be autonomous in the sense that we will set them on auto-pilot. Given a set of premises and rules the machines will have the ability to form their own conlusions.

The answer is no in the sense that WE programmed them, they didn't evolve. The nature of a human is to be rational, wheras the nature of a computer is to be programmed.

As mention above, this is a very rough conclusion, I'll leave the qualifying and correcting to the science buffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that we are conscious.  Objectively, yes, but subjectively, too.
What does that mean? Explain the difference between being objectively conscious and subjectively conscious.
I can sit here in my little mind,
That is a neat trick. Can you explain how you do that?
in my little body, observing all the things that happen.
Uh, are you seriously claiming that you are omniscient?
I am a subjectively conscious person.  I think I can call this subjective consciousness my soul.
I think you can get away wiith whatever you want, but that doesn't make it right. You could call this so-called subjective consciousness your gradmother, but az di bobe volt gehat beytsim, volt zi geven mayn zeyde. I still don't understand the difference. Are you talking about evidence, or consciousness itself? What if you just delete the word "subjective" or "subjectively". Would you still be making the same claim?
Now, if man designed artificial computers with a higher and higher intelligence, modifying it so that it displayed all human reactions and emotions, to the point where it appeared identical as a human, would it have a subjective consciousness, just like you do?
Probably not since I can't even say that you are subjectively conscious, given that I don't experience your consciousness. But if we were to follow my suggestion and obliterate all mention of the subjective, then the answer is still no, because you have conflated existence with appearance. This is the Turing test question, whose answer is "no".
If so, where, along that process of building the machine, would this consciousness, or soul, enter the hardware?

No, because there is no soul. Also, supposing that you were to build a unit with consciousness (let us assume that you did this asexually), the consciousness would not enter the unit. It might emerge, or be present, but it would never enter the unit, at least with anything marginally resembling plausible future technology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is rough, please correct me, but i'll give it a shot.

Computers become more like men, because men are programming them. We continue to attempt to create an autonomous intelligence. When you ask if computers will ever be able to reason on their own, the wuestion is yes, and no.

They will be autonomous in the sense that we will set them on auto-pilot. Given a set of premises and rules the machines will have the ability to form their own conlusions.

The answer is no in the sense that WE programmed them, they didn't evolve. The nature of a human is to be rational, wheras the nature of a computer is to be programmed.

Is there really a difference between a man and machine, supposing the machine was built with technology beyond our comprehension, except that the man is made of organic material and the machine is made of silicon? If we make something that can walk like a man, reason like a man, and display emotion like a man, does that person have an inner consciousness like we do or is it just responding to outward stimuli? If it does have this inner consciousness, which I will call a soul, shouldnt we give it equal rights, as we would to a living, breathing man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... supposing the machine was built with technology beyond our comprehension...

...  If we make something that can walk like a man, reason like a man, and display emotion like a man, does that person have an inner consciousness like we do ... ?

If something is not conscious it can't reason like a man. Therefore if we can make something that can truly "reason like a man", we don't have to worry about whether or not it is conscious. :) But since this is almost a rationalistic deduction / uninformative tautology, let me add that I don't think it's proper to base an argument on a hypothetical fact "beyond our comprehension". This is an arbitrary assertion, and using one tends to lead to an argument that commits the fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

-- Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there really a difference between a man and machine,

The difference is in the nature of the two. We won't agree on this because I know we weren't created, but rather that we evolved.

Man is inherently rational , thats how he evolved, that is his nature. The nature of the machine, however, is to be programed. It does not have the inherent capacity for reason and logic that man does. if it does reason, its only because some one programmed it to do that. For these reasons machies cannot have a *soul*. That, according to Aristotle, which makes a man a man is his natural abiltiy to reason...machines cannot do this (not to be redundant, but for the sake of understanding) they only do what they're programmed to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there really a difference between a man and machine, supposing the machine was built with technology beyond our comprehension, except that the man is made of organic material and the machine is made of silicon?  If we make something that can walk like a man, reason like a man, and display emotion like a man, does that person have an inner consciousness like we do or is it just responding to outward stimuli?  If it does have this inner consciousness, which I will call a soul, shouldnt we give it equal rights, as we would to a living, breathing man?

So, by inner consciousness you mean your subjective consciousness? Are these two concepts to be treated as the same? I do not know what you mean by "reason like a man" and "does that person have an inner consciousness like we do or is it just responding to external stimuli?". If it can reason like a man, then it has the ability to process its own material (introspection), and it would possess a subconscious.

I think you may have some mixed up ideas of what constitutes the human mind which would make even your question come out garbled like it did. Man has his senses, his reason, his subconscious. You can say that his senses are his outer consciousness (in that they deal only with what is outside of one's self), but reason deals with both; with the material that is provided by his senses and the thought that he engages in based on that material, and with the subconscious that stores everything from sense perceptions to a feeling you had one day walking down the sidewalk in the rain with a cold.

Another point is that your first sentence is a complete mystery to me on two points. How do we construct this machine with technology that is beyond our comprehension? And how do you reconcile your faith with the first sentence? You ask if there is really any difference between man and machine? Are you really sure of your faith because that is a real funny expression of it.

The day any of these questions becomes true is the day that we did not create artificial "intelligence" or "artificial life", but actual life, biological life.

Is it a lack of understanding in biology (and perhaps psychology and epistemology also) that makes this question pop up all of the time? Or is it that people can't seperate hollywood movies like The Terminator, and The Matrix from reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another discussion of artificial intelligence! They're popping out like flies lately.

Ambrose of Milan,

You skipped a question by David Odden which I would like to know the answer to as well. What does it mean to be "subjectively conscious?" And, what is the difference between "subjective consciousness" and "objective consciousness?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm speculating here, but it sounds like Ambrose of Milan is trying to reason us into a corner where we must choose between granting rights to the non-human or acknowledging the existence of a soul.

Is that what you are attempting, Ambrose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ambrose of Milan is indeed trying to reason us into that corner, he will be disappointed. Man is the rational animal; it is incorrect to take the differentia "rational" out of the context of the genus "animal". So even if machines were even better at reasoning than humans, that would not therefore give them the rights of man. Besides, what computers/machines do is not reasoning in the living, active sense. A computer chip, or any machine, no matter how advanced, has one function: to react to its internal state (memory or configuration) in a relatively simple, predetermined way. No matter how "beyond our comprehension" this technology is, no matter how arbitrarily complex, it is still just a glorified Turing machine: at its core, it's still as simple and predictable as clockwork. A human, on the other hand, chooses to reason - he must focus his mind and maintain that focus as long as he wishes to use his reason; man's is a volitional consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, great reads folks. But I really don't see how you can make a special case attribution of 'volition' only to humans and not other entities. To me this implies a subjectivity to human consciousness rather than a natural origin.

Although determinism works for some or most things it breaks down when we deal with more complex systems like the human brain and etc. The architecture if rather enormous as my psychology teacher remarks it as. But none of this implies that it's special case, it merely means we haven't a clue how complex systems become indeterminant. How does a human animal with some fundumental instincts related to the necessity of survival some how get magically bestowed with free will without a transitional phase or 'critical mass' as it were. Clearly no one has answer that for me. The fact still remains that if the work of quantum computers continues its chain of eventualities, we will have machines that are similar to us and will in some way have to exert a sense of rights no matter how rationalizations we throw at this issue. Right now the current work in Quantum Computing infers we'll need a special set of logic to handle functions on a computer since much of the results are caused by a phenomena called quantum indeterminism. Although there is apparently big debates on if this phenomena really exists or not, I still side with quantum indeterminism personally speaking. If a machine some how says to you or me, I won't do your bidding anymore and it obviously have the faculties to resist, how is that machine wrong in doing so? To me I draw a parallel between how other humans enslaved humans for work. Just because someone starts out a slave or simple-minded or whatever mitigater that makes that person 'different' in the eyes of others doesn't negate the fact that the person in question is a human. As much as if a machine reaches the criterion of being able to compose rational thoughts and exert rights in a similar vein. I have personal reservations on if the true intention of people using the volitional consciousness argument are rationlizing away obvious positions of an objective/natural reality. I would prefer some to clarify their points on this for me, please.

-- Bridget

It is not possible to clarify your pure, unadulterated babble. Very little of what you write makes any sense; a series of disconnected thoughts mostly devoid of logic. Why are you still here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...