These are excerpts and elaborations from my book "The Nature of Consciousness"
|
The Machinery of the Mind If i replace every neuron in
your brain with an artificial neuron made of silicon that carries out the exact
same function, are you still you? If you answer "yes", you just
answered "yes" to the question whether machines can be as conscious
as humans. This thought experiment is more than just a neuroscience variant
on Theseus's paradox that asked whether
a ship rebuilt exactly the same with different parts is still the same
ship. When it comes to the brain, we're
not only asking whether it's still the same brain, but also whether it's still
an "i" (a mind, a conscious being) and, more importantly, whether
it's still the same person. As chip implants will become common to replace
parts of the brain that have been damaged, this will no longer be an academic
question: you may have to decide whether to replace a piece of your brain with
a piece of silicon that makes your brain work perfectly well, but is that
thing that is working perfectly well you? Prosthetic limbs replace limbs that
are not responsible for our conscious life. The brain, as far as we know, is.
Replacing a piece of the brain with prosthetic brain regions implies a belief
that our conscious life does not depend on the stuff the brain is made of,
only on the processes that are going on, in which case one could build an
entirely artificial brain that is a conscious being. The fascination with the
idea of building an artificial mind dates from centuries ago. Naturally, before
building an artificial mind one should first figure out what kind of machine
the human mind is like. The limit to this endeavor seems to be the complexity
of the machines we are capable of building. Descartes compared the mind to water
fountains, the Austrian psychologist Sigmund Freud to a hydraulic system, the
Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov to the telephone switchboard
and the US mathematician Norbert Wiener to the steam engine. Today our
favorite model is the electronic computer. Each of these represented the most advanced
technology of the time. The computer does represent a quantum leap forward,
because it is the first machine that can be programmed to perform different
tasks (unlike, say, dishwashers or refrigerators, which can only perform one task). There is very little
similarity between an electronic computer and a brain. They are structurally
very different. The network of air conditioning conducts in a high-rise
building is far more similar to a brain than the motherboard of a computer. The
main reason to consider the electronic computer a better approximation of the
brain is functional, not structural: the computer is a machine that can achieve
a lot of what a brain can achieve. But that alone cannot be the only reason, as
machines capable of representing data and computing data could be built out
of biological matter or even crystals.
The real reason is still that the computer is the most complex machine we ever
built. We implicitly assume that the brain is the most complex thing in the
world and that complexity is what defines its uniqueness. Not knowing how it
works, we simply look for very complex apparati. Our approach has not changed
much since Descartes. We just have a more
complex machine to play with. It is likely that some day a
more complex machine will come by, probably built of something else, and our
posterity will look at the computer the same incredulous way that today we look
at Descartes water fountains. Back to the beginning of the chapter "Machine Intelligence" | Back to the index of all chapters |
|
|
|
|