Interesting post—while I don’t have any real answers I have to disagree with this point:
“Why do you think your computer is not conscious? It probably has more of a conscious experience than, say, a flatworm or sea urchin. (As byrnema notes, conscious does not necessarily imply self-aware here.)”
A computer is no more conscious than a rock rolling down a hill—we program it by putting sticks in the rocks way to guide to a different path. We have managed to make some impressive things using lots of rocks and sticks, but there is not a lot more to it than that in terms of consciousness.
Note that you can also describe humans under that paradigm—we come pre-programmed, and then the program changes itself based on the instructions in the code (some of which allow us to be influenced by outside inputs). The main difference between us and his computer here is that we have less constraints, and we take more inputs from the outside world.
I can imagine other arguments for why a computer might not be considered concious at all (mainly if I play with the definition), but I don’t see much difference between us and his computer in regards to this criteria.
P.S. Also the computer is less like the rolling rock, and more like the hill, rock and sticks—i.e. the whole system.
A computer is no more conscious than a rock rolling down a hill—we program it by putting sticks in the rocks way to guide to a different path.
Careful!--a lot of people will bite the bullet and call the rock+stick system conscious if you put a complicated enough pattern of sticks in front of it and provide the rock+stick system with enough input and output channels by which it can interact with its surroundings.
Interesting post—while I don’t have any real answers I have to disagree with this point:
A computer is no more conscious than a rock rolling down a hill—we program it by putting sticks in the rocks way to guide to a different path. We have managed to make some impressive things using lots of rocks and sticks, but there is not a lot more to it than that in terms of consciousness.
Note that you can also describe humans under that paradigm—we come pre-programmed, and then the program changes itself based on the instructions in the code (some of which allow us to be influenced by outside inputs). The main difference between us and his computer here is that we have less constraints, and we take more inputs from the outside world.
I can imagine other arguments for why a computer might not be considered concious at all (mainly if I play with the definition), but I don’t see much difference between us and his computer in regards to this criteria.
P.S. Also the computer is less like the rolling rock, and more like the hill, rock and sticks—i.e. the whole system.
Careful!--a lot of people will bite the bullet and call the rock+stick system conscious if you put a complicated enough pattern of sticks in front of it and provide the rock+stick system with enough input and output channels by which it can interact with its surroundings.