Tom KooningJan 16, 2023

AI won't be Conscious, and here's why

You see, everything a computer does can, in principle, be done with pipes, pressure valves and water. The pipes play the role of electrical conduits, or traces; the pressure valves play the role of switches, or transistors; and the water plays the role of electricity. Ohm’s Law—the fundamental rule for determining the behavior of electric circuits—maps one-on-one to water pressure and flow relations. 

https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/01/ai-wont-be-conscious-and-here-is-why.html

#ai #consciousness

AI won't be conscious, and here is why (A reply to Susan Schneider)

This is the homepage of philosopher and computer scientist Bernardo Kastrup, with links to his biography and most of his works.

Show threadThomasJan 16, 2023

@TomKooning

Is the "mechanical argument" sufficient for rejecting the idea of conscious machines?

Can you reject Dualism with arguments that presuppose Dualism?

Where does #phenomenology come in?

Show threadTom KooningJan 16, 2023
@tg9541 A main argument from the article is that the idea that AI can become conscious is based on isomorphism: the idea that computers are like brains. Which is not so. As he pointed out computers are in principe not different than a complex systeem of water pipes and valves. I dont think anyone would believe that such a system can become conscious, No matter how complex. The best it can do is mimic conscious.
Show threadThomasJan 16, 2023

@TomKooning
I noticed that much.

I believe that rejecting mechanistic explanations won't bring us closer to the answer to the riddle than 17th and 18th century philosophy. It's just as wrong as the rejected isomorphism approach in that it presupposes dualism.

Rejecting the possibility of a solution on the grounds of complexity (i.e., unorganisability due to missing technology) for something that's hidden in natural complexity (i.e., unknown due to a lack of knowledge) is a curious approach.

Show threadTom KooningJan 16, 2023
@tg9541 Taking consciousness as the ontological primitive makes for me most sense, and on top of that, it stays closest to our own experience.
Show threadThomasJan 16, 2023
@TomKooning that's what Descartes did. I really believe that we've learned from that (and the attempts to repair the approach) and moved on.
Show threadTom Kooning

@tg9541 As I understand it, Descartes was a dualist.Taking consciousness as a ontological primitive is not a dualistic approach; It's non-dual, or idealistic.

What do you mean with 'we moved on from that'?

Jan 16, 2023 at 2:48pmWeb
Show threadThomasJan 16, 2023

@TomKooning that's a long journey, e.g., Descartes / Locke -> Leibnitz / Wolff / Tschirnhaus -> Lambert / Kant / Hegel -> von Uexküll / Peirce / Husserl / Heidegger...

Today, Dualism is hardly philosophically defensible.

Besides criticism from #philosophy there are many other entry points (e.g., embodiment, 4E).

In the 20th century theoretical frameworks for agency were developed (-> #biosemiotics).

On the philosophical side #phenomenology is a useful framework.|

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/

Phenomenology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)