Summary |
Machines
cast the problem of explaining consciousness in a particularly interesting
light. The most basic question is: Could a machine be conscious? Or, can
consciousness be explained mechanically? More specifically, does consciousness
have anything to do with what something is made out of, or is the only relevant
issue what a thing’s parts are doing, whatever those parts are made of? Could a machine made out of gears and pulleys
be conscious? Could a computer be conscious (a variant: is the internet conscious)? Could a machine made out mostly water, carbon, and
nitrogen be conscious? Are only information processors conscious (however
this is defined, and however information processing is implemented)? Perhaps
can openers aren’t conscious not because they are made out of steel and
plastic, but because their parts aren’t processing information, or not
processing information in the right way. These two issues can be combined:
Can only machines with neurons be conscious because only neurons can do what
has to be done to produce consciousness? Perhaps consciousness cannot be
explained mechanically, but nevertheless only mechanical things can be
conscious; rocks are excluded, perhaps. Is being alive necessary? Could we upload our consciousness to another
kind of machine? Finally, what is the
relation between behavior and the attribution of consciousness? Confronted with
a non-conscious robot that behaved as if it were conscious, we would find it
nearly impossible not to treat it accordingly, say, by refraining from
insulting it or hitting it. Behaving as if they are conscious is in fact all we
have to go on concerning our fellow carbon-based earthlings. So, it is because animals like dogs, cats, octopi, and humans behave as if they are
conscious, that we naturally conclude that they are (at least today . . .
throughout history, however, many humans have been reluctant to attribute
consciousness to others significantly unlike them, including other humans,
dogs, cats, and octopi, etc.)
|