Why do some non-religious people reject artificial consciousness?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
Negative Resistance
Philosophical question on logistic regression: why isn't the optimal threshold value trained?
Extracting Dirichlet series coefficients
Multiple options vs single option UI
Mistake in years of experience in resume?
Trouble removing package using Yum on CentOS7
Is Electric Central Heating worth it if using Solar Panels?
Unknown code in script
Work requires me to come in early to start computer but wont let me clock in to get paid for it
Island of Knights, Knaves and Spies
Retract an already submitted recommendation letter (written for an undergrad student)
A strange hotel
How to pronounce 'c++' in Spanish
Find a stone which is not the lightest one
What to do with someone that cheated their way through university and a PhD program?
What is the best way to deal with NPC-NPC combat?
My bank got bought out, am I now going to have to start filing tax returns in a different state?
Creating a chemical industry from a medieval tech level without petroleum
Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?
Is Diceware more secure than a long passphrase?
Injection into a proper class and choice without regularity
Can a stored procedure reference the database in which it is stored?
What is the unit of time_lock_delta in LND?
As an international instructor, should I openly talk about my accent?
Why do some non-religious people reject artificial consciousness?
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
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
|
show 6 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
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 22 at 19:49
2
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
Apr 22 at 20:08
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
Apr 22 at 20:24
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
Apr 22 at 20:34
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
Apr 22 at 23:15
|
show 6 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
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
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
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
edited Apr 22 at 19:49
Frank Hubeny
10.8k51559
10.8k51559
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
asked Apr 22 at 19:07
JuggernautJuggernaut
191
191
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 22 at 19:49
2
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
Apr 22 at 20:08
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
Apr 22 at 20:24
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
Apr 22 at 20:34
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
Apr 22 at 23:15
|
show 6 more comments
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 22 at 19:49
2
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
Apr 22 at 20:08
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
Apr 22 at 20:24
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
Apr 22 at 20:34
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
Apr 22 at 23:15
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 22 at 19:49
I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!
– Frank Hubeny
Apr 22 at 19:49
2
2
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
Apr 22 at 20:08
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
Apr 22 at 20:08
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
Apr 22 at 20:24
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
Apr 22 at 20:24
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
Apr 22 at 20:34
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
Apr 22 at 20:34
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
Apr 22 at 23:15
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
Apr 22 at 23:15
|
show 6 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
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
Software on hardware has nothing to do with dualism. Software, like all the information we know of, is made of matter arranged in a specific manner, and nothing is spiritual about it.
– armand
Apr 23 at 5:50
1
@armand The question asks for reasons why some non-theists reject artificial consciousness. I am not saying you have to agree with Searle, but dualism is one reason why his non-theistic position does not accept strong AI.
– Frank Hubeny
2 days ago
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
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
Software on hardware has nothing to do with dualism. Software, like all the information we know of, is made of matter arranged in a specific manner, and nothing is spiritual about it.
– armand
Apr 23 at 5:50
1
@armand The question asks for reasons why some non-theists reject artificial consciousness. I am not saying you have to agree with Searle, but dualism is one reason why his non-theistic position does not accept strong AI.
– Frank Hubeny
2 days ago
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
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
Software on hardware has nothing to do with dualism. Software, like all the information we know of, is made of matter arranged in a specific manner, and nothing is spiritual about it.
– armand
Apr 23 at 5:50
1
@armand The question asks for reasons why some non-theists reject artificial consciousness. I am not saying you have to agree with Searle, but dualism is one reason why his non-theistic position does not accept strong AI.
– Frank Hubeny
2 days ago
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
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
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
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
edited Apr 22 at 19:53
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
answered Apr 22 at 19:44
Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny
10.8k51559
10.8k51559
Software on hardware has nothing to do with dualism. Software, like all the information we know of, is made of matter arranged in a specific manner, and nothing is spiritual about it.
– armand
Apr 23 at 5:50
1
@armand The question asks for reasons why some non-theists reject artificial consciousness. I am not saying you have to agree with Searle, but dualism is one reason why his non-theistic position does not accept strong AI.
– Frank Hubeny
2 days ago
add a comment |
Software on hardware has nothing to do with dualism. Software, like all the information we know of, is made of matter arranged in a specific manner, and nothing is spiritual about it.
– armand
Apr 23 at 5:50
1
@armand The question asks for reasons why some non-theists reject artificial consciousness. I am not saying you have to agree with Searle, but dualism is one reason why his non-theistic position does not accept strong AI.
– Frank Hubeny
2 days ago
Software on hardware has nothing to do with dualism. Software, like all the information we know of, is made of matter arranged in a specific manner, and nothing is spiritual about it.
– armand
Apr 23 at 5:50
Software on hardware has nothing to do with dualism. Software, like all the information we know of, is made of matter arranged in a specific manner, and nothing is spiritual about it.
– armand
Apr 23 at 5:50
1
1
@armand The question asks for reasons why some non-theists reject artificial consciousness. I am not saying you have to agree with Searle, but dualism is one reason why his non-theistic position does not accept strong AI.
– Frank Hubeny
2 days ago
@armand The question asks for reasons why some non-theists reject artificial consciousness. I am not saying you have to agree with Searle, but dualism is one reason why his non-theistic position does not accept strong AI.
– Frank Hubeny
2 days ago
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
Apr 22 at 19:49
2
You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.
– user4894
Apr 22 at 20:08
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
Apr 22 at 20:24
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
Apr 22 at 20:34
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
Apr 22 at 23:15