[alicebot-aiethics] FW: [alicebot-general] ZOMBIES

[Christopher Fahey [askROM]]

I wrote:
> 1) Consciousness is a real phenomonon, inexplicable by the laws of 
> physics (and very likely unique to humans).
> 2) Consciousness is not a real thing, but rather a perceived effect of

> an enormously complex mechanism. It is not necessarily restricted to 
> human minds, or even to biological minds.


Robbie responded:
> I believe that consciousness is a real thing


I think I defined #2 using the terms of definition #1; that is, #2
assumes that by 'consciousness' one means something ineffible. I should
rephrase these options:

  1) Consciousness is a paranormal phenomonon, inexplicable by the 
  laws of physics (and very likely unique to humans).
  2) Consciousness is the perceived effect of an enormously complex 
  physical phenomenon. It is not necessarily restricted to human 
  minds, or even to biological minds.


Robbie responded:
> But hopefully, quantum mechanics will be more clear to us by 
> that time...

It's easy to imagine that quantum mechanics may be part of the
explanation as to why the human mind's complexity is harder to explain
than, say, the behavior of balls on a billiard table. But overall, I
think this is a red herring: quantum uncertainty is real, but it's
effect on the real world is infinitesmal. Your socks aren't going to
suddenly disappear because of a quantum effect, and I don't think too
many microchip errors have been caused by quantum uncertainty. Likewise,
the stuff our brain is made of, neurons and chemicals, is unlikely to be
affected by quantum fluctuations in any significant way. 

The "butterfly effect" (where the entire outcome of human history is
changed by the modification of a single tiny little event in the past)
is a cool science fiction idea, but most of the time if you crush a
butterfly nothing much is likely to result in terms of it's effect on
human culture. Likewise, an electron [in an atom in an organelle in a
neuron in a brain] that happens to wander from it's orbit a little bit
more than usual isn't likely to have any effect whatsoever on the
function of the brain. 

Quantum mechanics, AFAIK, has no real effect on anything at any scale
greater than that of an atom or maybe a molecule. And usually these
effects are instantaneous before everything goes back to normal again. I
could be wrong, though: maybe someday they'll find out that cancer is
caused by quantum fluctuations.

I think that the idea that we may find some insight into the human
brain's function through quantum mechanics is our way of grasping at
straws to try to put consciousness back into the world of mystery, to
try to concoct a scientific explanation as to why brains will never be
scientifically explainable and to restore humanity to the center of the
universe. It's just remystification.

It's also a moot point anyway, because an artificial brain would be just
as suceptible to quantum fluctuation as a biological one. So even if the
quantum effect were great enough to cause perceptible changes in a
brain's function, it would effect artificial brains too.


Robbie responded:
> The bottom line is this:  If a thing performs a given task as 
> well as a person might have, does it matter how it got from A 
> to B? I say not only does it not matter, but who cares?

Yes, you're right. I think, ultimately, that we will all think that way.
Moreover, I think that the "What is sentience/consciousness?" question
will someday sound like "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?"

-Cf