Is it possible to build a sapient machine ?

[Bugmaster]

Topic

Many threads regarding dualism, theism, and philosophy in general, often run into this topic. Is it even hypothetically possible to build a computer that will be sapient -- i.e., an artificial being that will think, feel, and socialize as humans do ? Well, here's our chance: to resolve this debate once and for all ! Smoke 'em if you got 'em, people, this post is gonna be a long one.

I claim that creating Strong AI (which is another name for a sapient computer) is possible. We may not achieve this today, or tomorrow, but it's going to happen sooner rather than later.

First, let me go over some of the arguments in favor of my position.

Pro: The Turing Test

Alan Turing, the father of modern computing (well, one of them), proposed this test in ages long past, when computers as we know them today did not yet exist. So, let me re-cast his argument in modern terms.

Turing's argument is a thought experiment, involving a test. There are three participants in the test: subject A, subject B, and the examiner E. A and B are chatting on AIM, or posting on this forum, or text-messaging each other on the phone, or engaging in some other form of textual communication. E is watching their conversations, but he doesn't get to talk. E knows that one of the subjects -- either A or B -- is a bona-fide human being, and the other one is a computer, but he doesn't know which one is which. E's job is to determine which of the subjects is a computer, based on their chat logs. Of course, in a real scientific setting, we'd have a large population of test subjects and examiners, not just three beings, but you get the idea.

Turing's claim is that if E cannot reliably determine which being -- A or B -- is human, then they both are. Let me say this again: if E can't tell which of the subjects is a computer, then they're both human, with all rights and privileges and obligations that humanity entails.

This seems like a pretty wild claim at first, but consider: how do you know that I, Bugmaster, am human ? And how do I know that you're human, as well ? All I know about you is the content of your posts; you could be a robot, or a fish, it doesn't really matter. As long as you act human, people will treat you as such (unless, of course, they're jerks who treat everyone like garbage, but that's another story). You might say, "well, you know I'm human because today's computers aren't advanced enough to post intelligently on the forums", but doesn't prove much, since our technology is advancing rapidly all the time (and we're talking about the future, anyway).

So, if you're going to deny one of Turing's subjects his humanity, then you should be prepared to deny this humanity to everyone, which would be absurd. Therefore, a computer that acts human, should be treated as such.

Pro: The Reverse Turing Test

I don't actually know the proper name for this argument, but it's sort of the opposite of the first one, hence the name.

Let's say that tomorrow, as you're crossing the street to get your morning coffee, you get hit by a bus. Your wounds are not too severe, but your pinky is shattered. Not to worry, though -- an experimental procedure is available, and your pinky is replaced with a robotic equivalent. It looks, feels, and acts just like your pinkie, but it's actually made of advanced polymers.

Are you any less human than you were before the treatment ?

Let's say that, after getting your pinkie replaced, you get hit by a bus again, and lose your arm... which gets replaced by a robo-arm. Are you human now ? What if you get hit by a bus again, and your left eye gets replaced by a robotic camera -- are you less human now ? What if you get a brain tumor, and part of your brain gets replaced ? And what if your tumor is inoperable, and the doctors (the doctors of the future, of course) are forced to replace your entire brain, as well as the rest of your organs ? Are you human ? If so, then how are you different from an artificial being that was built out of the same robotic components that your entire body now consists of ?

Note that this isn't just idle speculation. People today already have pacemakers, glasses, prosthetic limbs, and yes, even chips implanted in their brains to prevent epileptic seizures (and soon, hopefully, Alzheimers). Should we treat these people as less human than their all-natural peers ? I personally don't think so.

Ok, I know that many of you are itching to point out the flaws in these arguments, so let me go over some common objections.

(to be continued below)

[harvey1]

state that only living things with human-like brains can possess consciousness

This is quite different than in saying that Searle holds that only humans can have consciousness.

[Bugmaster]

This is quite different than in saying that Searle holds that only humans can have consciousness.

AFAIK Searle really does believe that only human brains can have consciousness; however, other supporters of his theory expand it to include all human-like brains. I may be wrong about this fine detail of Searle's mentality, but I don't really see how it affects my main argument.

[harvey1]

AFAIK Searle really does believe that only human brains can have consciousness

That's not correct, Bugmaster. Searle does not believe that only human brains can be conscious.

I don't really see how it affects my main argument.

To be honest, I lost interest in this thread because of your 1950's behaviorism along with being busy responding to the other active threads between us. Ideally, I'd like to focus on one debating topic at a time with you. In this case, I saw that you were mistaken about a position held by a well-known philosopher, so I just wanted to correct that.

[Bugmaster]

To be honest, I lost interest in this thread because of your 1950's behaviorism along with being busy responding to the other active threads between us.

*shrug* Well, since I apparently subscribe to 1950s behaviorism, then clearly my argument is wrong. I'll keep on believing I'm right, however, until someone can convince me otherwise. Preferably, someone who subscribes to something more modern than 2000-year-old theism :-)

[harvey1]

*shrug* Well, since I apparently subscribe to 1950s behaviorism, then clearly my argument is wrong. I'll keep on believing I'm right, however, until someone can convince me otherwise. Preferably, someone who subscribes to something more modern than 2000-year-old theism

Ah, so that's it. You feel that because I hold to theism that therefore any view you hold which I do not, no matter how antiquated, must be correct. That doesn't speak well of your sensitivity toward being persuaded by others that do not hold a view other than your own.

[Bugmaster]

Ah, so that's it. You feel that because I hold to theism that therefore any view you hold which I do not, no matter how antiquated, must be correct.

Er, no, I was just pointing out that your references to "1950s behaviorism" aren't convincing. You're essentially saying, "your beliefs are old, therefore you're wrong". I just wanted to point out that, by this token, you're about 400 times more wrong :-)

[harvey1]

Er, no, I was just pointing out that your references to "1950s behaviorism" aren't convincing. You're essentially saying, "your beliefs are old, therefore you're wrong". I just wanted to point out that, by this token, you're about 400 times more wrong

It's not an argument, BM, it's an observation and a reason why I became very bored in this discussion. It's like arguing with someone who insists the earth is flat (although not as extreme).

[Bugmaster]

It's not an argument, BM, it's an observation and a reason why I became very bored in this discussion. It's like arguing with someone who insists the earth is flat (although not as extreme).

This, IMO, is the biggest difference between philosophy and science. In science, it's very easy to prove that the Earth is not flat -- just look at a sailing ship as it disappears over the horizon. Therefore, certain discredited scientific notions can safely be ignored. In philosophy, though, there's no such objective standard, so you have to do all the hard work yourself. It's not enough to say, "oh, I think you believe in a discredited worldview", you have to actually prove that the worldview is false, from the ground up. IMO, you have not done so convincingly on this thread (all you've done, pretty much, is refer to Searle's biological naturalism and consciousness/body dualism, which I refuted in my very opening statement), and therefore I'm going to keep on believing what I believe.

Note that I'm not saying, "Searle says X, Searle is wrong, therefore I'm right"; nor am I saying, "Turing says X, Turing is right, therefore I'm right". I'm actually giving reasons for my beliefs. In philosphy, appeal to authority rings somewhat hollow, since there's no objective standard to which authorities can be held.

[harvey1]

you have to actually prove that the worldview is false, from the ground up.

BM, in both philosophy and science one needs to be very sensitive to the weight of arguments against a position, and the lack of sensitivity can lead someone to hold any number of erroneous views. I think that this is also the case in physics, and is certainly the case in many other sciences. Even in mathematics (e.g., AoC) this is the case. In forums such as this, there are no careers jeopardized by lacking sensitivity, so it's not uncommon for debates either to go on endlessly, or abruptly ended by the person who sees that the debate is no longer moving forward. I personally try to give the benefit of doubt to each individual, and carry the debate as far as possible by attempting to make progress, but I have to draw the line when I can't even get agreement on what the whole academic world recognizes.

[Bugmaster]

...but I have to draw the line when I can't even get agreement on what the whole academic world recognizes.

Well, if you feel that the whole academic world recognizes consciousness/body dualism, then that's your prerogative, of course. I personally find it a bit of a cop-out. After all, Russel, Hume, Nietcshe, and many other respected philosophers have argued against theism (or, at least, against Christianity), but I'm not going to use that mere fact as justification for my position. Actually, I'm going to go one step further and reject every kind of a philosophical authority, unless their arguments are actually convincing. St. Thomas Aquinas, Turing, Searle, whomever... I'm not impressed by their names, only by their arguments.