Podcast about The Hard Problem of Consciousness (AI generated)

Introduction

It’s Thursday and we’re going into philosophy! Consciousness is a huge topic that I would normally need and want days to break down, but I’m going to do my best in the hour or two I’ve got to write this. I have actually listened to the AI podcast at the top of this post; I think it’s probably done a better job at explaining than I have here.

What is consciousness?

Straight from the first line of the page “consciousness” on Wikipedia:

Consciousness, at its simplest, is awareness of internal and external existence.

I think that’s an okay definition - it makes it sound quite simple really. I’m aware of my existence and I’m aware of other existence so I’m conscious.. makes sense… However, there have been decades of debate about this definition: what is consciousness, what makes something conscious, etc.. So I’m going to dive into it a bit more.

The hard problem of consciousness

So what is the hard problem? The hard problem is effectively explaining how physical processes (in the mind, body, etc.) relate to the experience of consciousness. How does our brain and the neurons firing and the hormones rushing through it make me think and feel and write this blog post in a way that I am aware?

Dualism

This is the doctrine that there are both physical and non-physical features of the world. This is a more “spiritual” argument in my opinion - that consciousness cannot be explained by learning everything we can about the physical world; there must be something metaphysical that impacts the fact that we, as human beings, can “feel” alive.

Materialism

This is the doctrine that the world is entirely physical, and that there is nothing more than what exists in the realm of the physical. Therefore, everything can be explained by physical processes - including consciousness.

The illusion of free will

Christof Koch presents in his studies that much of what we actually “do” is unconscious and automatic - and then our conscious brain gives reason and meaning to that action. This sounds odd, but have you ever touched a hot object and moved your hand away instantly? You’re not thinking “this is hot I need to pull away” but you do think afterwards: “that was hot so I pulled away”. When I studied biology at school I was taught that this was called a reflex response, and the route of information through your nervous pathways do go to your brain - however they bypass the cerebral cortex - which is the region where neuroscientist believe the brain produces “conscious thought”.

This is a very obvious example, however it also happens when you drive. Have you ever driven for an amount of time and then realised you weren’t really thinking about driving for a while? Even typing is considered one of these “zombie” actions. We aren’t thinking about pressing each button individually, we just kind of think words and we press the correct keys while they appear on the screen. (side note: it is very odd typing this exact experience up as it is making me highly aware of the fact my fingers are moving without me thinking about them - woah.)

Will machines ever be conscious?

Personally I think this depends on whether or not you subscribe to dualism or materialism. Through the lens of dualism it would not be conceivable that machines could become conscious as there will never be that metaphysical aspect - as we have built these machines, in contrast to more “natural” creation.

Philosophical Zombies

This is a term coined up by David Chalmers (or maybe Robert Kirk) that describes a being that would act like a human, behave like a human and for all intents and purposes seem like a human - however without consciousness. This thought experiment effectively refutes the idea of physicalism or materialism as it implies that we could recreate the perfect physical human, however they would not have consciousness - implying that there must be something metaphysical or “more” to consciousness.

This would imply that we cannot and will never be able to create a conscious machine.. maybe that’s a good thing.

Conclusion

I’m just going to talk about my own thoughts here. I completely personally subscribe to materialism. It’s probably the physicist in me, but I like the idea that we can actually explain everything in this world by processes and objective “things”. Do I think we could make a machine conscious? Yes, unfortunately. I think it would be disastrous to the world and probably bring out some horrible human ethics dilemmas and I hope I’m not around to see it - selfishly.