Published on Author Christopher Fahey1 Comment

I just re-read Alan Turing’s “Computing Machinery and Intelligence“, for something like the 5th time. It’s worth reading every few months or so just to see how cogent, thorough, and prescient it is. I can’t punch a hole in it. And everything I’ve ever read where someone else tries to punch a hole in it seems to use crazy circular and overly-complex logic… or worse, relies on intangible, even mystical ideas of what consciousness is.

The most widely-accepted counterarguments appear to be of the “Argument from consciousness” and of the “Lovelace” variety (which Turing himself seemed to think was the counterargument most worthy of his attention): Machines can’t possibly think, it says, because machines cannot originate ideas. Original ideas are a by-product of consciousness, which a machine cannot have (how’s that for circular logic?).

What I really appreciated about Turing’s paper is his forthrightness about where he stands personally. He believes that computers will win his challenge, and that they will, in fact, think. He writes:

“The popular view that scientists proceed inexorably from well-established fact to well-established fact, never being influenced by any improved conjecture, is quite mistaken.”

What strikes me about his naysayers is this: I really can’t tell where they stand on the nature of consciousness. They don’t tell us where they fall on a core aspect of the definition of consciousness. It seems that you can only be in one of two camps:

  1. Consciousness is a real phenomonon, inexplicable by the laws of physics (and very likely unique to humans).
  2. Consciousness is not a real thing, but rather a perceived effect of an enormously complex mechanism. It is not necessarily restricted to human minds, or even to biological minds.

Camp #1 strikes me as a magical or spiritual belief. It’s fine if that’s how you see things, but you should at least say so so that people like me can know where you’re coming from. Me, I’m with #2.

I’m very interested in the concept of ZOMBIES: A “Zombie” (in the AI-naysayer argument) is a creature/being whose outward behavior has all the trappings of consciousness – it walks, it talks, etc. But it’s inner self is an empty place where it doesn’t even know what it is doing or why it is doing it. It has no understanding of its own actions. The ZOMBIE argument says, essentially:

“Okay, so you’ve made a robot that passes the Turing Test (or even what is called the “Total Turing Test”: a robot that is physically and behaviorally indistinguishable from a person but who is nonetheless artificial, engineered and built by humans.). But it does not have any awareness of what it does, so it is not really conscious the way we humans are.”

My counterargument to this is twofold. First, as Turing himself notes, there is no way of knowing the answer to this even with regards to other human beings – what goes on in someone else’s mind is a (forever?) unsolvable mystery. Second, who is to say that real live humans even have a consciousness where we know what we are doing and why we are doing it, or that such an inner experience is all that much different from that of an ape or a pig? My mind is constantly doing things that I didn’t necessarily ask it to do – I don’t ask to fall in love or get angry, I just become in love or angry.

We are only beginning to understand the enormous degree to which an individual human’s behavior is governed by often-volatile chemical activity and fragile psychological mechanisms – it seems inevitable that neurological research will eventually figure out the exact nature of friendship, decision making, contentedness, love, jealousy, thrills, fear, and all of the other things that humans think are somehow intangible aspects of human consciousness.

Perhaps what we think of as self-awareness is simply an illusion, and that in fact we are 100% driven by explainable electrochemical forces, i.e., we are a Turing state-machine.

Anyway, my real question is: Shouldn’t AI theorists be required to choose which of the above two definitions of consciousness they subscribe to? I think many AI-naysayers subscribe to #1 (Searle, for example) but refuse to admit it since it is, at its core, utterly unscientific.

One Response to ZOMBIES!

  1. Hey, Cuzzo. I am in philosophy here at Southern Utah University and we went over Turing today in class. First thing it reminded me of was this cousin I have that lives in Brooklyn. I was even about to ask my professor if he may have heard of you thinking you did something artificially intelligent that got you in the new york times. I forget what that was all about so I got on el computadorey and typed your name in and wound up reading this. Interesting stuff, I’ll figure out what you did to get into the Times here in a minute but I just wanted to let you know I think your cooler the smarter I get, or smarter I think I’m getting. Compared to others of course which may be misleading. Others being traditionally lame. So, I wish you well and luck and I think you might like this professor character, he’s one of the most knowledgable chaps I’ve ran into and maybe he’s smarter than you but maybe you could get into some pointless philosophical chitterchatter typpertapper on the computer, so I think I’ll tell him about your business and if he’s interested he may do what he’ll do. But I am proud of you as a Fahey, or I’m proud to be a Fahey as in you are as well, maybe you and Colin got all smart from your mother but I’ll prematurely count that option out in benifit of my optimistic goal setting.
    But assuradly the newest Fahey is by far superior, Sir Harper Theodore. I took the initiative and knighted him already. I’m sorry I haven’t updated the family on my paternal accomplishments but I’m out here in Utah saving myself from insanity, so needless to say my mind was ashamadly elsewhere. Tell Peggy she’s dope and I’m shifting my schooling towards filmmaking. I think I want to be a wildlife filmmaker, but people might count as wildlife and I may film them doing crazy things, but right now I’m just getting into the business through the news angle, at least thats what I’m in school for, Communications: Broadcasting emphasis. So there you go, go eat a crumbly turkey burger for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *