Why Humans will NEVER create true existential consciousness in a silicon based Artificial Intelligent System.... the musings of an AI Practitioner / Philosopher.
THE ARGUMENT(s):
Consciousness is not well-understood
⦁ Humans are incapable of creating some "thing" from fiat (a decree). It's never happened in human history. The innovation cycle must begin with some "thing" (some "stuff" of some kind),As an AI practitioner and consciousness is not a thing.
⦁ The essence of consciousness is imperceptible (it is unseen), like gravityphilosopher, and attraction. Humans are incapable of creating things which they are unable to observe. Even if they areI don't think that humans will be able to observe it, the human perceptive ability is unable to actually perceive the true essences of things seen, much less those unseen.
⦁ Human do not adequately understand the "essence" and "nature" of consciousness - which iscreate a fundamental prerequisite to creating "anything" at alltruly conscious silicon-based AGI.
⦁ The "easy" problems, those physical by nature, although not yet solved by empirical domains of psychology, cognitive science and neuroscience, are expected to be solved in time. Regardless, they are "not" yet solved today.
Humans are incapable of creating some "thing" from fiat (a decree). It's never happened in human history. The innovation cycle must begin with some "thing" (some "stuff" of some kind), and consciousness is not a thing.
The essence of consciousness is imperceptible (it is unseen), like gravity, and attraction. Humans are incapable of creating things that they are unable to observe. Even if they are able to observe it, the human perceptive ability is unable to actually perceive the true essences of things seen, much less those unseen.
Humans do not adequately understand the "essence" and "nature" of consciousness - which is a fundamental prerequisite to creating "anything" at all.
The "easy" problems, those physical by nature, although not yet solved by empirical domains of psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience, are expected to be solved in time. Regardless, they are "not" yet solved today.
The "hard" problems, those determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter, might not ever be solved, since it must explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of "something else" or "nothing at all". This is significant and is the most damning of all arguments against the idea of humans creating true existential consciousness in silicon creatures as a whole.
⦁ The "hard" problems, those determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter, might not ever be solved, since it must explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of "something else" or "nothing at all". This is significant and is the most damning of all arguments against the idea of humans creating true existential consciousness in silicon creatures as a whole.
The greatest philosophical debate on consciousness has focused on the distinction between Dualism and Physicalism.
⦁ Physicalism holds that consciousness is entirely physical. (Significant arguments view it as false).
⦁ Dualism is the theory that consciousness somehow falls outside the domain of the physical. (these are the hard problems)
Why would one be motivated to hold one of the above Dualist views?
⦁ Physicalists havedualism and trouble explaining several aspects of consciousness in a way that is consistent with our "observations" of how physical properties interactphysicalism. (another damning argument)
Two Problems:
Dualism is the theory that consciousness somehow falls outside the domain of the physical (these are the hard problems)
Physicalism holds that consciousness is entirely physical. (significant arguments below view it as false).
⦁ How can something that is not part of the physical wold interact with the physical world - that's impossible.
Problems with dualist views
⦁ The physical world is a closed system, how can you have consciousness that is not part of a closed system.
Why would one be motivated to hold one of the above dualist views?
How can something that is not part of the physical world interact with the physical world? That seems impossible!
The physical world is a closed system, how can you have a consciousness that is not part of a closed system?
⦁ Consciousness is a lot like mass or charges, it's a philosophically "fundamental" thing, you either "have it or you don't", you can simulate them, but you cannot existentially "be" them unless you have those specific "properties", and behavior "simulating" human consciousness is not a fundamental thing.
So, despite the sensationalist tendencies of rogue journalists "parroting" wildly spectacular concepts from the fringe camps of the transhumanists (aka scifiscience fiction) - a quick perusal of the more rigorous communities of the grounded and thoughtful philosophers camp strongly and convincingly argues otherwise.
More musings on Physicalism (References to the titans of Philosophy given):
More musings on physicalism
Actually, consciousness has never been properly explained by the biomechanical, which is more or less the key issue of all philosophical studies of the mind - which is essentially the study of consciousness.
There are many problems with the Physicalism approach toPhysicalists have trouble explaining several aspects of consciousness, but the key ones are listed below in a way that is consistent with our "observations" of how physical properties interact. Let me list a few more problems, a reference: to the titans of philosophy.
Arguments that physicalism about consciousness is wrong:
Arguments that physicalism about consciousness is wrong
It is impossible to imagine how mere neuronal tissue could produce conscious experience (HuxelyHuxly)
Failures of supervenience, such as zombieszombies and inverted spectrainverted spectra, are conceivable (ChalmersDavid Chalmers, John Locke, etc.).
Mary learns somethingMary learns something (JacksonFrank Jackson).
Brains have mass, volume, and other physical properties, but experiences do not.
Paranormal phenomena (near death-death experiences NDErs, ESP, etc) are real, and involve consciousness implemented in a nonphysical substrate.
If shrunken so I can stroll around your brain and look about, I will observe neuronal processes, not experiences (LeibnizG. W. Leibniz).
The soul is the seat of consciousness, and the soul is not physical. (Theological constraints recognized BTW...).
Conscious experiences have intrinsic qualities, but science can only tell us about relational qualities (Russell, Rosenberg).
Consciousness cannot be observed; there will never be a consciousness detector that can tell you if a given creature is conscious.
Conscious experiences are not simply the movement of molecules, consciousness is more than mass in motion (Mill, Ward).
