X-Message-Number: 21741 Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 00:30:54 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: More on Consciousness and Simulations Francois, #21729, writes in part: >The inhability to prove that an artificial system has real self awareness is >an often used argument, and a very strong one. But to those who use it I >would ask to prove to me that THEY have real self awareness. They can't. But they could argue that they, like you, at least are natural, not artificial systems, and thus have a stronger claim than an inorganic robot. > I >accept that they do because I have self awareness and I observe them to look >and behave like me. It's a "proof" by analogy. If the internal and external >behavior of an artificial system were to match a human's behavior, I would >have to accept that it is self aware. Of course, the debate could be settled >once and for all if we figured out exactly what gives rise to self >awareness. More generally, you are interested in what gives rise to just awareness or consciousness. I'm not sure we will ever "figure out" this. The argument by analogy may be as strong as you can get, at least in important cases. If a system acts conscious, and clearly is simulating natural neural behavior at a deep level, is it "really" conscious or just an elaborate fake with no feeling or awareness at all? My position, once again, is to grant the benefit of doubt if it seems likely that consciousness is not disprovable. I would accept such a system as conscious and, along with it, accept a corresponding *definition* of consciousness. Others, though, might take the opposite tack of refusing to accept a system as conscious unless it could be "proved" (whatever this would mean). Carried to an extreme, it leads to solipsism--that you are the only conscious being. A lesser extreme, again, would be to accept that others who are physically like you are conscious but draw the line if there is too much difference, as for example, in the case of a brain with a lot of silicon chips doing most or all of the work. The issue is not entirely academic today. An artificial hippocampus is in the works (this has been noted here before) and could find use in humans in a few years. The hippocampus, as I understand it, is needed so memories make it to long-term storage. If it is kaput you get what is known as Korsakov's syndrome, where the subject may sound okay in brief conversation but is not able to form new memories. People like that are unable to function on their own and are trapped in the world as it was before their condition started. An artificial hippocampus could cure this condition but I suppose some would claim the patient is now part zombie, even if he seemed perfectly okay. Other parts of the brain may be much harder to simulate artificially but I see it coming. And I don't worry over it much, but instead see it as a possible immortalization. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21741