Why do some non-religious people reject artificial consciousness?












2















I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.



I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".



What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?



Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?



I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".










share|improve this question









New contributor




Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!

    – Frank Hubeny
    6 hours ago











  • You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.

    – user4894
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls

    – Juggernaut
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.

    – Cell
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.

    – Richard
    2 hours ago
















2















I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.



I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".



What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?



Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?



I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".










share|improve this question









New contributor




Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





















  • I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!

    – Frank Hubeny
    6 hours ago











  • You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.

    – user4894
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls

    – Juggernaut
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.

    – Cell
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.

    – Richard
    2 hours ago














2












2








2








I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.



I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".



What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?



Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?



I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".










share|improve this question









New contributor




Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I use "artificial consciousness" as a broad term to describe the possibility that a computer may have the same experience of reality and of itself that we have.



I guess that a religious view, more precisely a view that requires humans to have a "soul", is fairly incompatible with the concept of "artificial consciousness".



What I am asking instead is why does such rejection sometimes come from a non-religious view?



Shouldn't a non-religious view lead almost immediately to the acceptance that humans are nothing more than machines themselves, so that every difference between humans and computers is merely architectural (biological neurons vs transistors)?



I hear sometimes people messing with the fact that the human brain has a particular structure that, mysteriously, cannot be reproduced through computation (violating the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle). This argument would require some super-natural properties related to the human brain, going back to a religious view that humans are "magical".







consciousness artificial-intelligence atheism






share|improve this question









New contributor




Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Frank Hubeny

10.7k51558




10.7k51558






New contributor




Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 6 hours ago









JuggernautJuggernaut

111




111




New contributor




Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Juggernaut is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.













  • I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!

    – Frank Hubeny
    6 hours ago











  • You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.

    – user4894
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls

    – Juggernaut
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.

    – Cell
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.

    – Richard
    2 hours ago



















  • I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!

    – Frank Hubeny
    6 hours ago











  • You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.

    – user4894
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls

    – Juggernaut
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.

    – Cell
    5 hours ago








  • 1





    Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.

    – Richard
    2 hours ago

















I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!

– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago





I made an edit which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome!

– Frank Hubeny
6 hours ago













You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.

– user4894
5 hours ago





You are conflating consciousness with computability. A grave but certainly popular error.

– user4894
5 hours ago




1




1





Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls

– Juggernaut
5 hours ago







Why too simplistic? Our computers (von Neumann architecture) are implementation of Turing machines (excluding memory limitation), so they can calculate any computable function. That's really enough to compute any physical object. Indeed, in order to prove that something is not computable, you would need an infinite amount of data to back such thesis. The point is, why making such strange claims about humans (i.e. they cannot be computed) from people who already accepted the absence of souls

– Juggernaut
5 hours ago






1




1





If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.

– Cell
5 hours ago







If one accepts that organic life forms are equivalent to machines, that does not mean that consciousess can be captured by self-contained programming code alone assuming you are talking about what is colloquially known as AI.

– Cell
5 hours ago






1




1





Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.

– Richard
2 hours ago





Personally I think a lot of it is ignorance, coupled with a fair amount of crypto-religious thinking. Certainly people in the industry have no doubts. Governments neither. The race to machine sentience is in full.swing. To the winner the spoils.

– Richard
2 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:




Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.




If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.



Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:




This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.




So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.





Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.



Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833






share|improve this answer


























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "265"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62052%2fwhy-do-some-non-religious-people-reject-artificial-consciousness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    2














    John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:




    Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.




    If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.



    Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:




    This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
    contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.




    So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.





    Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.



    Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833






    share|improve this answer






























      2














      John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:




      Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.




      If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.



      Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:




      This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
      contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.




      So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.





      Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.



      Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833






      share|improve this answer




























        2












        2








        2







        John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:




        Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.




        If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.



        Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:




        This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
        contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.




        So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.





        Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.



        Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833






        share|improve this answer















        John R. Searle is a non-theist who believes in biological naturalism. Wikipedia describes Searle's position as:




        Searle denies Cartesian dualism, the idea that the mind is a separate kind of substance to the body, as this contradicts our entire understanding of physics, and unlike Descartes, he does not bring God into the problem. Indeed, Searle denies any kind of dualism, the traditional alternative to monism, claiming the distinction is a mistake. He rejects the idea that because the mind is not objectively viewable, it does not fall under the rubric of physics.




        If one has consciousness coming from a program running on a Turing machine, which is what I assume is meant by "artificial consciousness", one has dualism.



        Searle expressed his concern against the dualism of strong AI in his paper, Minds, Brains and Programs, where he described the Chinese Room Argument:




        This form of dualism is not the traditional Cartesian variety that claims there are two sorts of substances, but it is Cartesian in the sense that it insists that what is specifically mental about the mind has no intrinsic connection with the actual properties of the brain. This underlying dualism is masked from us by the fact that AI literature
        contains frequent fulminations against "dualism'-; what the authors seem to be unaware of is that their position presupposes a strong version of dualism.




        So, one reason for non-theists to reject artificial consciousness is because it implies a strong form of dualism. When one moves the program from machine to machine, if that program is indeed our minds, then we have gone through an out-of-body process to be reincarnated in another body.





        Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and brain sciences, 3(3), 417-424.



        Wikipedia contributors. (2019, February 5). Biological naturalism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 19:20, April 22, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_naturalism&oldid=881932833







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 6 hours ago

























        answered 6 hours ago









        Frank HubenyFrank Hubeny

        10.7k51558




        10.7k51558






















            Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Juggernaut is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62052%2fwhy-do-some-non-religious-people-reject-artificial-consciousness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Knooppunt Holsloot

            Altaar (religie)

            Gregoriusmis