Why? I think it’s much more plausible that we could create a computer that would simulate consciousness (though this would be the galaxy-sized computer you hypothesized in an earlier post) than one that would actually be conscious. One claim I can at least imagine. The other is arbitrary. How would you tell the difference?
As I said in an earlier post, consciousness is a mental state capable of “perception, cognition and the initiation and direction of mental action.” Simply put, I don’t think it’s possible to simulate these functions without them actually occurring. I just can’t conceive of how concept-formation can be performed without a conscious entity actually performing it. I will also add that while I am ignorant of theoretical computer science, I do know something about programming, and I can deduce the basic algorithm of any intelligent chat bot within a few responses. (Btw, I once attached a chat bot to my AIM profile with some interesting responses – more than a few people were fooled.)
Regarding the difficulty of creating artificial intelligence, I think there are two opposing factors to consider: that the speed of digital computations is much faster than the biological kind versus the fact that the brain is a neural network whereas digital computers use a linear model. The key question to me is whether intelligence requires a large-scale neural processing model. I don’t think we know enough about consciousness to make a determination of that, but if it does not, true AI may be possible within the next few decades. After all, human intelligence did arise by a natural process, and four billion years of biological evolution may add up to a few weeks of processing with a supercomputer.
Again, refer to my concept of a simulated brain. It is theoretically possible to create a digital simulation of every single atom in the brain. Since the behavior or atoms is entirely causal, it can be represented exactly in virtual form. The same physical properties that give rise to consciousness in humans will then be replicated in digital form. Now, I am not saying that such a simulation is feasible, but it is a useful theoretical model.
Exactly. If deterministic matter gives rise to consciousness, but consciousness cannot be reduced to matter, why can’t deterministic algorithms give rise to consciousness, even though consciousness cannot be reduced to algorithms?
Again, refer to my concept of a simulated brain. It is theoretically possible to create a digital simulation of every single atom in the brain. Since the behavior or atoms is entirely causal, it can be represented exactly in virtual form. The same physical properties that give rise to consciousness in humans will then be replicated in digital form.
Real life is not The Matrix, and digital simulations are not the brain.
why can’t deterministic algorithms give rise to consciousness, even though consciousness cannot be reduced to algorithms?
A note on terminology:
Determinism is “the philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.” (Heritage Dict.) Since living entities are initiators of their own actions, determinism is an erroneous theory, and the term “deterministic” has no valid applications. Actions of all entities are causal, not deterministic. Living entities are unique in that they are the prime movers of their actions.
In answer to your post, I think it would be correct to say that if my example of a simulated brain is valid, (causal) digital algorithms can theoretically give rise to consciousness.
GreedyCapitalist, I don’t see any reason to reject the term deterministic simply because it is associated with an invalid philosophy. We don’t reject the word subjective because subjectivism is philosophic drivel.
To say that some isolated system of matter is deterministic does not imply that the whole of existence is deterministic.
Even long-time Objectivists knowledgeable in the ways of physics use the word:
For a non-technical overview of Little’s TEW, which is a causal, deterministic, and local theory, see my three-part article at:
–stephen speicher
The word is useful because causal is not an exact synonym for deterministic in the context you’ve used it in. You can certainly find, for instance, talk of the causal nondeterministic random nature of quantum mechanics. Whether or not this is logically sound is another matter…
Since living entities are initiators of their own actions, determinism is an erroneous theory, and the term “deterministic” has no valid applications. Actions of all entities are causal, not deterministic.
The philosophical/psychological doctrine called “determinism” does deny volition and is indeed self-contradictory. However, you over-generalize when you state that “the term ‘deterministic’ has no valid applications.” The term “deterministic,” as it is commonly applied in the physical sciences, is most certainly a valid application.
One definition of “determinism” is “The doctrine that everything that happens is determined by a necessary chain of causation.” [Oxford English Dictionary] The physically deterministic behavior of matter means those actions which are caused and necessitated by the entity’s nature. That is a perfectly valid use of the term.
Living entities are unique in that they are the prime movers of their actions.
No. All living entities are self-regulatory, but only an entity which possesses a volitional consciousness, like man, can be said to be a “prime mover of their actions.”
The self-regulatory actions of life on the vegetative level are fully determined by the physiological/biological processes of the entity. The self-regulatory actions of the lower-level conscious animals are much more complicated but are still biologically “programmed” through the physical mechanisms (sensory-perceptual, etc.) which regulate their behavior, and are automatic.
By contrast, with man’s volitional consciousness comes the unique ability to regulate the action of his own consciousness, and it is that fact – the existence of a primary choice – which makes man the only “prime mover of [his] actions.”
However, you over-generalize when you state that "the term ‘deterministic’ has no valid applications.
So is “deterministic” is a synonym for “casual?” Why the need for a separate term them? I find it interesting that Amaqi mentioned that QM is “causal nondeterministic,” since it shows the errors one can fall into when using that term.
The self-regulatory actions of life on the vegetative level are fully determined by the physiological/biological processes of the entity.
So there isn’t a fundamental difference between a computer virus a dog?
I find it interested that Amaqi mentioned that QM is “causal nondeterministic,” since that shows the errors one can fall into when using that term.
The point was to show that the words denote different concepts. Causal means simply having a cause. Deterministic means that the outcome of a process is fixed by the initial conditions.
[Edit: I removed the rest of this post, primarily because it was confused and superfluous]
I find it interested that Amaqi mentioned that QM is “causal nondeterministic,” since that shows the errors one can fall into when using that term.
No, it shows two different errors. (1) You should not just accept what someone else says, and (2) you should not blame words themselves for the confused ideas of others.
I am not in the mood right now to present a detailed history of quantum mechanics, but the standard theory is both acausal and indeterministic. Max Born was the first to remove determinstic behavior from the quantum realm in 1926. Born presented his probabilistic interpretation of atomic collisions, and he showed how to interpret, contrary to Schroedinger, the wave intensity as a density of probability for a particle.
“If one translates this result into terms of particles, only one interpretation is possible … gives the probability for the electron … to give up determinism in the world of atoms.” [“On the Quantum Mechanics of Collisions,” Max Born, Zeitschrift fur Physik, 37, pp. 863-867, 1926.]
One year later, in 1927, Werner Heisenberg presented his “uncertainty principle” and therein removed causality from the quantum realm. Heisenberg ended this paper with:
“One can express the true state of affairs better in this way: Because all experiments are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics, and therfore to equation (1), it follows that quantum mechanics establishes the final failure of causality.” [“Uber den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik,” Zeitschrift fur Physik, 43, pp. 172-198, 1927.]
So there isn’t a fundamental difference between a computer virus a dog?
Last time I checked Norton did not include Cali, my golden retriever, in their virus definitions. And I must remark, I am thankful for that, because I love Cali dearly.
(Serious question: has this discussion been reduced to silliness? If so, I’ll move on.)
(Serious question: has this discussion been reduced to silliness? If so, I’ll move on.)
Only your posts…
One final point:
Deterministic is a perfect word for the subcategory of causality as it applies to matter.
OPAR deals with with this on pages 62 to 68.
“The principle of causality does not apply to consciousness, however, in the same way that it applies to matter. In regard to matter, there is no issue of choice; to be caused is to be necessitated. In regard to the (higher-level) actions of a volitional consciousness, however, ‘to be caused’ does not mean ‘to be necessitated.’” p.64
Here is the point I was getting at. This is from OPAR, p189:
The actions of a living organism are self-generated and goal-directed. The are actions initiated by the organism for the sake of achieving an end.
(Emphasis is Dr P’s.)
Next page:
Being a living creature, its response is to use external factors for its own end. Being a living creature, it’s response consists in initiating the kind of action that can preserve its life
This was my point in differentiating living from non-living entities. But you’re right, the term “prime-mover” implies a volitional consciousness, which animals lack.
Here is the point I was getting at. This is from OPAR, p189:
“The actions of a living organism are self-generated and goal-directed. The are actions initiated by the organism for the sake of achieving an end.”
But you have to be really careful about what meaning you attach to terms such as “self-generated” and “goal-directed.” Harry Binswanger wrote an entire book (his thesis) on “The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts,” which clarifies the significance of terms such as these.
Later LP clarifies a bit by saying “‘Goal’ is not synonymous with ‘purpose’ …” and he quotes Ayn Rand as saying
“Goal-directed [in this context] designates the fact that the automatic functions of living organisms are actions whose nature is such that they result in the preservation of an organisms life.”
[Quoting Peikoff:]Being a living creature, its response is to use external factors for its own end. Being a living creature, it’s response consists in initiating the kind of action that can preserve its life
This was my point in differentiating living from non-living entities.
The words I used myself clarify this further:
“The self-regulatory actions of life on the vegetative level are fully determined by the physiological/biological processes of the entity. The self-regulatory actions of the lower-level conscious animals are much more complicated but are still biologically “programmed” through the physical mechanisms (sensory-perceptual, etc.) which regulate their behavior, and are automatic.”
Consciousness cannot be reduced to any specific software algorithm.
I have learned in my years that the ONLY thing impossible, is for; two mountains side by side, without a valley in between. Just because we are not smart enough to figure it out yet, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Everything can be solved by mathmatics, so can conscious machines, just a matter of time. Probably not in my life time.
I wonder if someone might comment on this. This discussion has led me to view the brain in a way I had not previously considered, and I am curious to know if anyone agrees with me. Earlier I said:
the neural circuitry that gives rise to consciousness is a physical process that is composed entirely of basic, deterministic chemical and physical interactions, which nonetheless, in the aggregate, produce consciousness–which is not determined. This circuitry then, as a whole, can also be called nondeterministic, because while it produces consciousness, it is also controlled by consciousness. Its output is therefore not determined.
What I want to know is whether the human brain should be identified along with the mind as being caused, but not deterministic.
From OPAR:
In regard to matter, there is no issue of choice; to be caused is to be necessitated. In regard to the (higher-level) actions of a volitional consciousness, however, ‘to be caused’ does not mean 'to be necessitated.
Now, the brain has no power of volition–it is only matter. Thought and choice are performed by consciousness in the mind, not in the brain.
And yet–every thought, every act of volition is expressed physically in the brain, at exactly the same time they occur in the mind. Consciousness causes directly a large portion of the physical action that occurs in the brain, and this action therefore is not the fixed outcome of any initial conditions–it is not deterministic. The physical course the brain takes parallels the course of consciousness, and so both are caused, but not necessitated.
The physical course the brain takes parallels the course of consciousness, and so both are caused, but not necessitated.
No. Just like any other physical process, the actions of the brain are both caused and necessitated.
As stated in your quote from OPAR, the higher-level choices of consciousness are caused but not necessitated. But the primary choice of consciousness, when properly understood, is both caused and necessitated. (Read the pages after your quote up through page 69.
