The Rise of the Machines
Published November 23, 2003
"It seems to me obvious that machines will achieve consciousness."
Charles Krauthammer, in his op-ed column in Thursday's Washington Post. More:
- After all, we did, and with very humble beginnings. In biology, neurons started firing millions of years ago, allowing tiny mindless organisms to move about, avoid noxious stimuli, etc. But when enough of those neurons were put together with enough complexity, all of a sudden you got... us. In principle, why should that not eventually occur with silicon? The number of chips and complexity of their interaction will no doubt be staggering and may require centuries to construct. But I do not see why silicon cannot make the same transition from unconsciousness to consciousness that carbon did.
Me neither. Although Krauthammer won't have to simply wonder about it. Ray Kurzweil - author of "The Age of Intelligent Machines" and "The Age of Spiritual Machines," whose predictions in the past have proved very accurate - projects 2025 as the year when machines will merge with man. Hans Moravec, author of "Mind Children," says around 2050. Hang in there, Charlie, 'cause we ain't seen nothin' yet!
Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.
- The Rise of the Machines
- Published: November 23, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Books
- Writer: bookofjoe
- bookofjoe's BC Writer page
- bookofjoe's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Good one!
surely, there is one big problem with assuming that machines can gain consciousness - WE make machines, they are entirely man-made, therefore there will always be limits to what they can do.
ok, i'm finding my argmuent difficult to articulate here...the best way i can put it, is this: when we make computer processors, we make them blank and then have to program them. humans (and indeed other animals) are "programmed" as they are made, bit by bit. Until we can match that process of making, by which time the differences between our modern computers and actual life will be minimal if not nonexistent, our machines will not be self-aware, and when they are, they may well be classed as a form of life anyway.
If man can't create consciousness yet man can create machines, why should we believe machines can achieve consciousness. I guess it would mean believing that consciousness is a vertical plateau that can be reached from outside in, instead of inside out. This is actually a very philosophical debate. I don't believe consciousness is an accident or something that kind of happens like a spark hitting something flammable. But then again what do I know, I am barely conscious myself. Der duh der duhuh ?!?
The main problem here is the definition of conciousness. The idea of a concious computer is plagued by our own biases. For instance, many people still adhere to the concept "I think, therefroe I am" (which is also known as Cartesian Dualism). The problem with this concept is that it assumes that there is a central theatre, literally or metaphorically inside the head where the 'stream of consciousness' is viewed.
There is no one place where consciousness happens. Our mental states are processed in parallel in the brain, and there is no place where the signals have to reach in order to be conscious. Instead all the mental activity in the brain is accomplished as a result of parallel processes of elaboration and interpretation of sensory inputs. Information is therefore under continuous editorial revision as it enters the nervous system. There is no canonical stream of consciousness to refer to in making a decision as to what we are actually conscious of, and when we first become conscious of it.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/10372)
I try to "avoid noxious stimuli", but they keep printing Krauthammer columns.