# Is Computer Self-Awareness Possible **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787 "2011-05-22T17:20:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/41 "2011-05-23T21:29:03Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > The way a brain works and the way a computer works are fundamentally different. Stephen Hawking would disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/42 "2011-05-23T21:30:54Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > A brain simply performs operations, too. We have pretty much complete understanding of how a neuron works, and we can accurately simulate neurons with computers. Can we though? There is some recent research that suggests our [sense of smell](http://www.physorg.com/news89542035.html) relies on quantum mechanical effects. If this turns out to be accurate, it seems fairly likely that the brain utilises similar tricks. We may need to rethink the idea that the brain is simply a neural net of vast complexity. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/43 "2011-05-23T21:41:59Z")
But even if it turns out the brain uses quantum computing for some functions why can’t we add quantum computers to our real/fake self aware computer? And note that quantum effects couldn’t be the magic pixie dust that creates human awareness, since these quantum effects would be present in the nervous systems of nonhuman animals too. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/44 "2011-05-23T22:19:04Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Divine spark”? :rolleyes: Why not say that we can’t make self aware AI because Odin doesn’t will it? When has this sort of vitalism ever turned out to be true? I’m not the one making an extraordinary woo claim here, you are. Making a machine that mimics self awareness doesn’t mean you’ve made a sentient being that is self-aware, it means you’ve made a Turing test. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/45 "2011-05-23T22:35:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, let’s put it this way: Suppose ST:TNG matter-replicator technology were possible: If you were to replicate a human being, would you inevitably get a dead one who could not be “revived,” because there is some kind of soul or spirit or vital essence that is not replicated because it is not matter? Because that seems to be what you are saying. If **not,** then it’s purely a problem of material complexity, isn’t it? The closer we can model the natural brain, the closer we can get to something that works like it and shares its self-awareness – right? Not at all. Just because you can program something that replicates self awareness doesn’t mean you’ve made something that is actually self-aware, only that you’ve made something that replicates self-awareness. It has nothing to do with matter or spirit, or material complexity. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/46 "2011-05-23T22:37:55Z")
So a “divine spark” (your own words) isn’t “woo”? As for quantum effects, _everything_ relies on quantum effects. What’s that got to do with anything? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/47 "2011-05-23T22:43:24Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I’m not the one making an extraordinary woo claim here, you are. Making a machine that mimics self awareness doesn’t mean you’ve made a sentient being that is self-aware, it means you’ve made a Turing test. “Divine spark” is pure woo. And I’m talking about making a machine that _has_ self awareness not just imitates it; and again, we know that it is possible because we have self awareness. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for something existing in humans that we can’t duplicate even theoretically. Not that it’s really hard, or that we don’t know how yet, but that we can’t do so no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/48 "2011-05-23T22:48:31Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > But even if it turns out the brain uses quantum computing for some functions why can’t we add quantum computers to our real/fake self aware computer? Perhaps, but if it’s required it will make solving the problem of AI much more difficult. It’s relevant to the OP, as he is specifically asking if AI can be achieved using silicon. > [@Chronos](#): > > As for quantum effects, _everything_ relies on quantum effects. What’s that got to do with anything? I brought it up in direct response to your statement about how we could model brain function by simulating neurons. That may not be sufficient. I don’t think there are any theoretical barriers to solving the problem of AI, but the practical problems are vast. ---
**Author:** ![Reno\_Nevada](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Reno\_Nevada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reno_Nevada)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/49 "2011-05-23T22:56:17Z")
So, I think that we can definitely answer a question related to the OP: Will we ever be able to build a computer that can convince \*\*Dissonance \*\*that it is self-aware? The answer is: **no**. Really, before pushing on with this question, you need to tackle another related question: \*is a dog self-aware? \* Why do you say that? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/50 "2011-05-23T23:12:55Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > I’m not the one making an extraordinary woo claim here, you are. Making a machine that mimics self awareness doesn’t mean you’ve made a sentient being that is self-aware, it means you’ve made a Turing test. What’s the difference between a machine that can successfully fake being self-aware, and a machine that is actually self-aware? If you can’t explain what the difference is, then there is no difference. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/51 "2011-05-23T23:15:21Z")
The notion of an artifical ‘philosophical zombie’ of any significant complexity is a bit absurd. Every time you subject it to a _novel_ situation or stimulus, and it responds in a plausibly and appropriately sentient way, it becomes increasingly less likely that it _is_ a zombie. What I mean is, if you condition your AI to converse about tea and cakes, and it does so convincingly, then one day, you scream “I’M GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU!”, and it reacts in apparent terror, it seems most likely (although of course we can never really know) that the reaction is what it appears to be. Occam’s Razor, really - things tend to be as they appear, and when that appearance is hugely multifaceted, the tendency is multiplied. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/52 "2011-05-23T23:22:15Z")
I would tend to argue that true self-awareness isn’t really possible. So, in that sense, I agree with Dissonance to some respect; a computer can only ever become complex enough that its ability to appear self-aware improves. But then I think that for we humans, that’s also the case; we’re just sufficiently complex enough that we give the appearance, even to ourselves, of self-awareness in that sense. Which is a pretty good thing, really. The ability to have truly original thoughts sounds like a terrifying idea. ---
**Author:** ![Driver8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b5a626/32.png) [@Driver8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Driver8)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/53 "2011-05-23T23:59:31Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > How would you prove you hadn’t? > > Obviously a first step is to build a machine that plausibly seems at first glance to be self aware, we’re not talking about proving that a rock isn’t self aware. > > But if there’s a difference between fake self awareness and real self awareness, there has to be a test you could do to tell the difference. Otherwise, I assert that there is no difference. If there is a difference, you should be able to tell me what that difference is. Since you can’t, there isn’t one. I don’t believe that not knowing how to test the difference between two things implies that there is no difference between two things. And that really is what it boils down to: there is a difference since I know that I am self-aware. You probably know that you are self-aware. But we can’t test each other. Nor could we test a machine that we built, even thought it might know that it is self-aware. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/54 "2011-05-24T00:38:01Z")
> [@Dissonance](#): > > Before I worked in programming computer self-awareness sounded plausible. I’ve since come to the conclusion that a computer is as likely to become sentient as a toaster is. The closest you could come is programming a computer to mimic self-awareness, but being able to do that doesn’t invoke the divine spark. Is it necessarily even a _programming_ task? It seems as though you’re assuming it would have to be a brute-force simulation of the whole thing of self-awareness. It wouldn’t - we could, for example, program the building blocks of a self-organising system, in which it may be possible to make self-awareness arise as an emergent phenomenon. > [@Dissonance](#): > > Yes. A computer is never going to have an original thought - or any thought for that matter. It will only ever do what it has been programmed to do, no matter how complex that may be. Atoms will only ever do what atoms do, and the brain is made of them. Besides, we’ve already got computer algorithms and systems that do original/creative things - often these are based on neural networks - and whilst it’s true that their low-level computational activity is very well understood, and proceeds all according to design, the systems themselves are capable of producing outputs that could not reasonably have been anticipated by their designers. This isn’t self-awareness, but it does demonstrate that complex systems can do surprising things. There is not logically and conceptually very much difference between: Understanding the chemistry and physics of brain matter, but acknowledging the outputs and operation of the thing as complex and intelligent. Understanding the low-level design of a complex computer system, and being surprised by the complexity of its operation as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/55 "2011-05-24T00:41:11Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I would tend to argue that true self-awareness isn’t really possible. So, in that sense, I agree with Dissonance to some respect; a computer can only ever become complex enough that its ability to appear self-aware improves. But then I think that for we humans, that’s also the case; we’re just sufficiently complex enough that we give the appearance, even to ourselves, of self-awareness in that sense. > > Which is a pretty good thing, really. The ability to have truly original thoughts sounds like a terrifying idea. I can’t help thinking we might be operating with different definitions of self-awareness. We’d have to be sentient to be taken in by the illusion of our own sentience. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/56 "2011-05-24T03:24:12Z")
I know. If self-awareness is only an illusion, then what the fuck is it that’s having the illusion? If I think I’m self-aware, but really only kidding myself, then who am I kidding? It is true though that our minds often don’t work the way we think they work. If you read [Oliver Sacks](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_man_who_mistook_his_wife_for_a_hat), you can hear case histories of people with specific brain injuries that certainly challenge our notions of unitary consciousness. Imagine having a stroke and losing your ability to recognize faces, or your ability to feel the position of your limbs. But that only gets back to my insistence that there can be no difference between simulated self awareness and real self awareness. If our personal self-awareness was only simulated, how would we know? And so I assert that the illusion of consciousness that we human beings experience is what consciousness IS. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/57 "2011-05-24T04:22:15Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > Ahem - speaking (meaning: I \*am \*in management;)) > > But I stand on my initial point: What matters more, arguing some concept in abstract, absolute fashion or understanding how it spills out into everyday life? Is “self-awareness” some clearly defined point or is what matters how technology will exhibit increasingly self-aware-like-behavior? > > Even as we speak, in very-clearly-delineated activites, we have interactions with simulated-intelligent agents. NOT artificially intelligent - just capable of managing the major discussion branches of a narrowly-branching activity. > > How long will it be before we can replicate that in a brute-force way across much more complex activities? And, at that point, is the bright line of self-awareness really the point? Self-awareness is a meaningless noise. I can’t think of any objective way to demonstrate that I am self-aware, much less a computer. Frankly most of the history of AI research, hasn’t actually resulted in intelligence machines, but shown how little of human activity actually requires intelligence. They are already talking about adapting the Watson system to medical diagnosis and most people think that what doctors do requires intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/58 "2011-05-24T05:52:04Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I can’t help thinking we might be operating with different definitions of self-awareness. We’d have to be sentient to be taken in by the illusion of our own sentience. Sure, but that’s easily programmable; we have version of it now, such as virus checkers. A computer may be programmed to check itself. I don’t see any difference, aside from complexity, between that and what humans do. A red computer may be programmed to respond “blue” to a query as to what colour it is. That isn’t sentience, yet the computer is taken in. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/59 "2011-05-24T05:55:28Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Occam’s Razor, really - things tend to be as they appear, and when that appearance is hugely multifaceted, the tendency is multiplied. Exactly, things tend to be exactly what they appear to be. A machine programmed to mimic self-aware behavior is a machine mimicking self-aware behavior. It is an enormous leap to claim that it actually _is_ self-aware. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Divine spark” is pure woo. And I’m talking about making a machine that _has_ self awareness not just imitates it; and again, we know that it is possible because we have self awareness. Sorry, I’m not talking about a literal divine spark from God of the Judeo-Xian bible. I have to wonder if you are even aware that your reasoning is the exact same reasoning used to ‘prove’ god exists; we know that god is possible because we can conceive of the possibility of god, therefore god must exist. The burden is on you to prove that a device designed to mimic self-awareness is actually self-aware, not just a device that mimics self-awareness. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787/60 "2011-05-24T06:08:00Z")
Given that my position is that the human brain is such a device, wouldn’t that mean i’m off the hook as regards proving it? 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-computer-self-awareness-possible/582787.md?page=4)