This is a blog for anyone who wants to discuss Philosophy. You can post any ideas that you want to discuss. If you want to contribute new posts (instead of simply commenting), please send a blank email from your gmail account to jacooba9@gmail.com with the subject "Philosophy12346," so you can be added. (See the first post in July for more detailed instructions, and see "http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~phils4" for class website.) Have fun! – Jake Beck
Sunday, August 26, 2012
AI
Even if computers could have consciousness, how could they have free will? We design then such that we know where their electricity will flow. And, if we don't have free will, what is the difference between our thought and theirs?
I would say that consciousness is more like an intelligent self-awareness, whereas free will implies that we can have an effect on what we will think (i.e. we can think things without having to think them).
Everything we know, we know to be a part of a common existence. We have no true knowledge of anything, but our perceptions tell us otherwise. With that said, it is not crazy to think that a computer could have "free will". In fact, it would seem crazier to throw out the possibility. The brain Seems to be made of the same thing a computer is made of, and is held back just as much
I'm not quite sure I see how you are relating epistemology to this problem. Gould you explain that more?
I do, however, disagree with your second assertion. The brain is only similar in composition to the brain in that they both are made if atoms. But, beyond that, the components are entirely different. A computer cannot choose what to do. It cannot help but follow a predetermined path. Even if a program allows for "learning," the outcome if the program could have been predicted. We design computers such that we know where the electricity in them will flow. We design computers such that if another were to run through the program, it would have the same exact results. If this were not true, computers would defeat their very own utility and programs would lose all practicality. And, since computers can't help but follow a predetermined path, they can have no say in the matter. They cannot control their "thoughts" (assuming that we can even call them thoughts), and so cannot "will" anything to happen.
Furthermore, even if we can find a way to generate true randomness in a program, this is no better than the computer having to follow a predetermined path, for the results of the program are not determined by the computers own volition.
As for consciousness, computers operate according to programs. They can only "think" based by following the logic of human being. They can only "think" by giving the answer we set them up to give. They can only "think" by returning our own thoughts. We force them to operate the way they do. They are unaware of their processes on all levels.
But even if humans did not put the "thought" into the program, and computers arose naturally through evolution, the computer is still not conscious (as its origins have no effect on what we should label a computer's processes). Storing and running a set of 1s and 0s is fundamentally different from how our brains work. Is a computer to be determined conscious only when running this program? And why should it even be considered conscious then, when it is doing the same things, just with different instructions. To a computer, running a program that makes it conscious "feels" and is the same a running any other mundane program. And surely my computer is not conscious for running Internet Explorer.
Maybe if we build metal synapsis and neurons (instead if using logic gates), for the wiring, then the computer will have hope (for the number if protons in your atoms surely has no relation to consciousness), but this would require great space and is a long time away...
But I think this may even be the same for humans. Neurons, synapses, and the rest may not even help...
So, either the computer could only have acted the way it did, or it could have acted otherwise but had no choice in the matter.
They can only "think" by giving the answer we set them up to give. They can only "think" by returning our own thoughts. (The computer could say "i am thinking," but that though is really either your though or precipitated by you)...
My argument for a general lack of free will works much in the same way, except it applies these arguments to particles instead if the macrostructures present in computers.
Well, what do you define as the difference between consciousness and free will?
ReplyDeleteI would say that consciousness is more like an intelligent self-awareness, whereas free will implies that we can have an effect on what we will think (i.e. we can think things without having to think them).
ReplyDeleteEverything we know, we know to be a part of a common existence. We have no true knowledge of anything, but our perceptions tell us otherwise. With that said, it is not crazy to think that a computer could have "free will". In fact, it would seem crazier to throw out the possibility. The brain Seems to be made of the same thing a computer is made of, and is held back just as much
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure I see how you are relating epistemology to this problem. Gould you explain that more?
DeleteI do, however, disagree with your second assertion. The brain is only similar in composition to the brain in that they both are made if atoms. But, beyond that, the components are entirely different. A computer cannot choose what to do. It cannot help but follow a predetermined path. Even if a program allows for "learning," the outcome if the program could have been predicted. We design computers such that we know where the electricity in them will flow. We design computers such that if another were to run through the program, it would have the same exact results. If this were not true, computers would defeat their very own utility and programs would lose all practicality. And, since computers can't help but follow a predetermined path, they can have no say in the matter. They cannot control their "thoughts" (assuming that we can even call them thoughts), and so cannot "will" anything to happen.
Furthermore, even if we can find a way to generate true randomness in a program, this is no better than the computer having to follow a predetermined path, for the results of the program are not determined by the computers own volition.
As for consciousness, computers operate according to programs. They can only "think" based by following the logic of human being. They can only "think" by giving the answer we set them up to give. They can only "think" by returning our own thoughts. We force them to operate the way they do. They are unaware of their processes on all levels.
But even if humans did not put the "thought" into the program, and computers arose naturally through evolution, the computer is still not conscious (as its origins have no effect on what we should label a computer's processes). Storing and running a set of 1s and 0s is fundamentally different from how our brains work. Is a computer to be determined conscious only when running this program? And why should it even be considered conscious then, when it is doing the same things, just with different instructions. To a computer, running a program that makes it conscious "feels" and is the same a running any other mundane program. And surely my computer is not conscious for running Internet Explorer.
Maybe if we build metal synapsis and neurons (instead if using logic gates), for the wiring, then the computer will have hope (for the number if protons in your atoms surely has no relation to consciousness), but this would require great space and is a long time away...
But I think this may even be the same for humans. Neurons, synapses, and the rest may not even help...
So, either the computer could only have acted the way it did, or it could have acted otherwise but had no choice in the matter.
ReplyDeleteThey can only "think" by giving the answer we set them up to give. They can only "think" by returning our own thoughts. (The computer could say "i am thinking," but that though is really either your though or precipitated by you)...
My argument for a general lack of free will works much in the same way, except it applies these arguments to particles instead if the macrostructures present in computers.