Why do some non-religious people reject artificial consciousness? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What are some arguments against the hard problem of consciousness?Why is it that the hard problem of consciousness appear hard?Why do epiphenomenalists believe that consciousness exists?Why is Sartre averse to “images” in consciousness?How can hard atheism & physicalism be adhered with confidence given quantum mechanics?What Ethical Responsibilities Could the Creator of an Artificial Consciousness be Held To?Why do people turn to atheism when they try to escape dogmas?Why did Daniel Dennett not explain consciousness?Non locality of consciousness
/bin/ls sorts differently than just ls
Compiling and throwing simple dynamic exceptions at runtime for JVM
Does traveling In The United States require a passport or can I use my green card if not a US citizen?
false 'Security alert' from Google - every login generates mails from 'no-reply@accounts.google.com'
Converting a text document with special format to Pandas DataFrame
Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
How to charge percentage of transaction cost?
Do chord progressions usually move by fifths?
How to mute a string and play another at the same time
Why aren't these two solutions equivalent? Combinatorics problem
Trying to enter the Fox's den
Short story about an alien named Ushtu(?) coming from a future Earth, when ours was destroyed by a nuclear explosion
What is the definining line between a helicopter and a drone a person can ride in?
Is my guitar’s action too high?
How to make an animal which can only breed for a certain number of generations?
Putting Ant-Man on house arrest
Why these surprising proportionalities of integrals involving odd zeta values?
What helicopter has the most rotor blades?
How to leave only the following strings?
Determine the generator of an ideal of ring of integers
Unix AIX passing variable and arguments to expect and spawn
What is the ongoing value of the Kanban board to the developers as opposed to management
Lights are flickering on and off after accidentally bumping into light switch
Continue tikz picture on next page
Why do some non-religious people reject artificial consciousness?
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What are some arguments against the hard problem of consciousness?Why is it that the hard problem of consciousness appear hard?Why do epiphenomenalists believe that consciousness exists?Why is Sartre averse to “images” in consciousness?How can hard atheism & physicalism be adhered with confidence given quantum mechanics?What Ethical Responsibilities Could the Creator of an Artificial Consciousness be Held To?Why do people turn to atheism when they try to escape dogmas?Why did Daniel Dennett not explain consciousness?Non locality of consciousness
I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.
I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".
What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?
Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?
I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".
consciousness artificial-intelligence atheism
New contributor
|
show 4 more comments
I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.
I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".
What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?
Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?
I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".
consciousness artificial-intelligence atheism
New contributor
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
5 hours ago
1
Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls
– Juggernaut
5 hours ago
1
If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.
– Cell
5 hours ago
1
Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.
– Richard
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.
I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".
What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?
Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?
I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".
consciousness artificial-intelligence atheism
New contributor
I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.
I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".
What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?
Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?
I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".
consciousness artificial-intelligence atheism
consciousness artificial-intelligence atheism
New contributor
New contributor
edited 5 hours ago
Frank Hubeny
10.7k51558
10.7k51558
New contributor
asked 6 hours ago
JuggernautJuggernaut
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
5 hours ago
1
Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls
– Juggernaut
5 hours ago
1
If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.
– Cell
5 hours ago
1
Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.
– Richard
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
5 hours ago
1
Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls
– Juggernaut
5 hours ago
1
If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.
– Cell
5 hours ago
1
Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.
– Richard
2 hours ago
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
5 hours ago
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
5 hours ago
1
1
Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls
– Juggernaut
5 hours ago
Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls
– Juggernaut
5 hours ago
1
1
If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.
– Cell
5 hours ago
If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.
– Cell
5 hours ago
1
1
Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.
– Richard
2 hours ago
Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.
– Richard
2 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:
Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.
If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.
Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:
This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.
So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62052%2fwhy-do-some-non-religious-people-reject-artificial-consciousness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:
Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.
If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.
Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:
This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.
So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833
add a comment |
John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:
Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.
If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.
Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:
This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.
So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833
add a comment |
John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:
Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.
If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.
Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:
This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.
So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833
John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:
Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.
If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.
Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:
This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.
So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.7k51558
10.7k51558
add a comment |
add a comment |
Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62052%2fwhy-do-some-non-religious-people-reject-artificial-consciousness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
5 hours ago
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
5 hours ago
1
Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls
– Juggernaut
5 hours ago
1
If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.
– Cell
5 hours ago
1
Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.
– Richard
2 hours ago