8 ms·

One can only hope that as the reductionist principles upon which our consciousness operates are made apparent by projects like these, that the masses will final

by Allocator2008 17y ago

One can only hope that as the reductionist principles upon which our consciousness operates are made apparent by projects like these, that the masses will finally begin to be disabused of the ever-persistent and pernicious god delusion which has impeded human progress and welfare since the dawn of recorded history.

mcslee 17y ago
Playing Devil's Advocate: if these simulations are truly modeled after humans, why are you so sure that they won't buy into many of the same religious ideas and reaffirm what many humans naturally think and do? Would a simulation like this even be aware that it was not just another person? It seems like the answer to this question MUST be that the simulation cannot tell the difference between itself and a normal human. Otherwise, your argument is moot, because the religious folk will simply be able to point at this thing and say "clearly this thing is different from us -- it even knows that it's different, so obviously this is not the way our 'souls' work."
- paulgb 17y ago
  I think what Allocator2008 is getting at is that creating artificial life would show that there is nothing mystical or non-physical about consciousness. This would partly poke a hole in the argument for existence of God that the creation of life and/or consciousness has never been witnessed. To have the artificial brain not be aware it is not a regular person, or to have the brain buy into religious ideas, would actually make the point (that the artificial brain is just like a human's, and thus consciousness is not mystical or non-physical) stronger. Edit: khafra, ericb, and alexandros made the point I was trying to make better and in less words in replies to this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=574258 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=574258
  - ewjordan 17y ago
    I think what Allocator2008 is getting at is that creating artificial life would show that there is nothing mystical or non-physical about consciousness. This would partly poke a hole in the argument for existence of God that the creation of life and/or consciousness has never been witnessed. Fear not. Even if the thing achieves consciousness, writes poetry, falls in love, critiques literature, etc., people will still claim that it's just faking it. "Neat trick, but it still doesn't have a soul, so it can't be conscious!" If I had to guess, I'd say that it would take a fresh generation, growing up with this sort of thing all around it, to accept (en masse) that the computers had whatever that special "something" is that we have. Personally, the chaos I'm really looking forward to is the legal mess that would arise - what happens when a computer, aided and guided by nobody in particular, does something illegal? Creates a piece of art and wants copyright protection? Who do you sue when a computer sets up its own Pirate Bay? Do you let it get its own bank account? What about when it figures out how to beat the stock market by hacking e-mail accounts of executives and returning trades based on insider information to clueless traders that just follow its black-box suggestions - is that insider trading if the system wasn't explicitly told to do that and no human ever sees the information? And so on...our legal system is neither equipped for this stuff, nor agile enough to adapt to it in a timely fashion, and these issues will remain unresolved far past the point of no return.
    - paulgb 17y ago
      > Fear not. Even if the thing achieves consciousness, writes poetry, falls in love, critiques literature, etc., people will still claim that it's just faking it. "Neat trick, but it still doesn't have a soul, so it can't be conscious!" Good point. Academics seem to have accepted that consciousness isn't magic for a while now, so building an artificial brain might not be so convincing for the rest of the world. > Personally, the chaos I'm really looking forward to is the legal mess that would arise... Yeah. I wouldn't even know where to start with figuring out some of those questions. I'm sure someone has written about this already, so if anyone knows who and where this has been written about I'd be interested in reading about it.
kirse 17y ago
So let's see, you set out to build a human brain and emulate consciousness, yet in the process you reaffirm to everyone that it takes a phenomenal level of supercomputing power, complexity and intelligent, purpose-guided scientists to create something that can operate on its own. I may be mistaken, but tell me again how intelligently designing and creating an autonomous entity furthers the atheist world-view (which I am guessing you agree with, given your careful choice of phrasing ala god delusion)? If I was one of the masses -- who are evidently far less enlightened than yourself -- I would argue that this project demonstrates that an intelligent being is clearly involved in the production of a conscious entity.
- alexandros 17y ago
  This is not about ID vs. evolution. It is about whether the brain can be reduced to a purely physical system or if there is something nun-physical about it, i.e. a 'soul'. Clearly, building a functioning artificial brain by copying the physical characteristics of a human brain should settle this one. I'm not saying we are there now, but there is certainly progress.
  - kirse 17y ago
    I did not say it was about ID vs. Evolution, either, but the original post clearly indicates a world-view that claims a lack of a designer. As I already noted, there would be an obvious logical dilemma between how the results of this experiment were achieved (if it ever came to fruition), and his world-view. Clearly, building a functioning artificial brain by copying the physical characteristics of a human brain should settle this one. You state this as if replicating a human brain would be like buying a new Lego set and following the instructions. I think we should first nail down the theory on why we sleep. You are aware that scientists still can't fully explain the most common mental process that takes up 30% of our lifetime? The human brain will never be perfectly replicated in this lifetime or any lifetime, in the same way that a group of toddlers would never 100% figure out the full technology and complete mechanical blueprints if they were handed a Ferrari.
    - 17y ago
GavinB 17y ago
I imagine you'll find it pretty frustrating when people start reprogramming their robotic servants to believe in their preferred god.
- eru 17y ago
  That's what electric monks are for.
  - wlievens 17y ago
    Do android priests dream of electric choir boys?
    - eru 17y ago
      Douglas Adams never hinted at any sexual preferences of electric monks in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/adams.html http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/adams.html
- Raplh 17y ago
  It won't seem much different to me than programming your children to believe in their preferred god.
gambling8nt 17y ago
Precisely what makes you think that a group of people who dismiss a concept as simple and transparent as natural selection will accept a collection of--probably significantly more complex--"reductionist principles upon which our consciousness operates"? Similarly (and in opposition to many of the opinions in the other responses), if faced with artificial consciousnesses, why do you expect them not to ascribe to them the same "soul" substance that they allow themselves (ultimately, anyway--early resistance is likely to be universal)? After all, it is immediately evident that people can perform an action that creates an entity with an independent consciousness; if humanity develops another such creation method, how would that contradict their theology?

mcslee 17y ago

Playing Devil's Advocate: if these simulations are truly modeled after humans, why are you so sure that they won't buy into many of the same religious ideas and reaffirm what many humans naturally think and do? Would a simulation like this even be aware that it was not just another person? It seems like the answer to this question MUST be that the simulation cannot tell the difference between itself and a normal human. Otherwise, your argument is moot, because the religious folk will simply be able to point at this thing and say "clearly this thing is different from us -- it even knows that it's different, so obviously this is not the way our 'souls' work."

paulgb 17y ago
I think what Allocator2008 is getting at is that creating artificial life would show that there is nothing mystical or non-physical about consciousness. This would partly poke a hole in the argument for existence of God that the creation of life and/or consciousness has never been witnessed. To have the artificial brain not be aware it is not a regular person, or to have the brain buy into religious ideas, would actually make the point (that the artificial brain is just like a human's, and thus consciousness is not mystical or non-physical) stronger. Edit: khafra, ericb, and alexandros made the point I was trying to make better and in less words in replies to this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=574258 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=574258
- ewjordan 17y ago
  I think what Allocator2008 is getting at is that creating artificial life would show that there is nothing mystical or non-physical about consciousness. This would partly poke a hole in the argument for existence of God that the creation of life and/or consciousness has never been witnessed. Fear not. Even if the thing achieves consciousness, writes poetry, falls in love, critiques literature, etc., people will still claim that it's just faking it. "Neat trick, but it still doesn't have a soul, so it can't be conscious!" If I had to guess, I'd say that it would take a fresh generation, growing up with this sort of thing all around it, to accept (en masse) that the computers had whatever that special "something" is that we have. Personally, the chaos I'm really looking forward to is the legal mess that would arise - what happens when a computer, aided and guided by nobody in particular, does something illegal? Creates a piece of art and wants copyright protection? Who do you sue when a computer sets up its own Pirate Bay? Do you let it get its own bank account? What about when it figures out how to beat the stock market by hacking e-mail accounts of executives and returning trades based on insider information to clueless traders that just follow its black-box suggestions - is that insider trading if the system wasn't explicitly told to do that and no human ever sees the information? And so on...our legal system is neither equipped for this stuff, nor agile enough to adapt to it in a timely fashion, and these issues will remain unresolved far past the point of no return.
  - paulgb 17y ago
    > Fear not. Even if the thing achieves consciousness, writes poetry, falls in love, critiques literature, etc., people will still claim that it's just faking it. "Neat trick, but it still doesn't have a soul, so it can't be conscious!" Good point. Academics seem to have accepted that consciousness isn't magic for a while now, so building an artificial brain might not be so convincing for the rest of the world. > Personally, the chaos I'm really looking forward to is the legal mess that would arise... Yeah. I wouldn't even know where to start with figuring out some of those questions. I'm sure someone has written about this already, so if anyone knows who and where this has been written about I'd be interested in reading about it.

kirse 17y ago

So let's see, you set out to build a human brain and emulate consciousness, yet in the process you reaffirm to everyone that it takes a phenomenal level of supercomputing power, complexity and intelligent, purpose-guided scientists to create something that can operate on its own. I may be mistaken, but tell me again how intelligently designing and creating an autonomous entity furthers the atheist world-view (which I am guessing you agree with, given your careful choice of phrasing ala god delusion)? If I was one of the masses -- who are evidently far less enlightened than yourself -- I would argue that this project demonstrates that an intelligent being is clearly involved in the production of a conscious entity.

alexandros 17y ago
This is not about ID vs. evolution. It is about whether the brain can be reduced to a purely physical system or if there is something nun-physical about it, i.e. a 'soul'. Clearly, building a functioning artificial brain by copying the physical characteristics of a human brain should settle this one. I'm not saying we are there now, but there is certainly progress.
- kirse 17y ago
  I did not say it was about ID vs. Evolution, either, but the original post clearly indicates a world-view that claims a lack of a designer. As I already noted, there would be an obvious logical dilemma between how the results of this experiment were achieved (if it ever came to fruition), and his world-view. Clearly, building a functioning artificial brain by copying the physical characteristics of a human brain should settle this one. You state this as if replicating a human brain would be like buying a new Lego set and following the instructions. I think we should first nail down the theory on why we sleep. You are aware that scientists still can't fully explain the most common mental process that takes up 30% of our lifetime? The human brain will never be perfectly replicated in this lifetime or any lifetime, in the same way that a group of toddlers would never 100% figure out the full technology and complete mechanical blueprints if they were handed a Ferrari.
  - 17y ago

GavinB 17y ago

I imagine you'll find it pretty frustrating when people start reprogramming their robotic servants to believe in their preferred god.

eru 17y ago
That's what electric monks are for.
- wlievens 17y ago
  Do android priests dream of electric choir boys?
  - eru 17y ago
    Douglas Adams never hinted at any sexual preferences of electric monks in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency. http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/adams.html http://www.mat.upm.es/~jcm/adams.html
Raplh 17y ago
It won't seem much different to me than programming your children to believe in their preferred god.

gambling8nt 17y ago

Precisely what makes you think that a group of people who dismiss a concept as simple and transparent as natural selection will accept a collection of--probably significantly more complex--"reductionist principles upon which our consciousness operates"? Similarly (and in opposition to many of the opinions in the other responses), if faced with artificial consciousnesses, why do you expect them not to ascribe to them the same "soul" substance that they allow themselves (ultimately, anyway--early resistance is likely to be universal)? After all, it is immediately evident that people can perform an action that creates an entity with an independent consciousness; if humanity develops another such creation method, how would that contradict their theology?