The other day, provoked by reading Iain Bank’s latest SF novel: Surface Detail, thought that perhaps one of the practical applications of philosphical mediaiton on the nature of mind was the nagging question of whether a machine could ever be conscious or self aware like  me and you.
On Twitter, Marc Bernstein of Eastgate and Tinderbox fame asked the obvious question of how one would ever know a machine was self aware. A very good question because the nature of subjective experience is that it is accessable only to one mind, the one expereiencing it.
Now when it comes to other people, I can never experience what its like to be  them subjectively. Yet I make a very strong assumption that they are experiencing a mind pretty much exactly the way that I do.
The reason I make the assumption that other people share subjective awareness is by analogy. While I can read descriptions written by others or directly query my family and friends about their subjective experience, why should I trust them? I trust them because the look and act just like I do. So its a pragmatic assumption that they experience the same cognitive function as me.
A machine could be self aware and try to convince me, but it will be a very hard sell because of the lack of analogous processes. It may or may not be a true claim by the machine intelligence. I just don’t know what it would take to convince me.
Looking in an entirely different direction provides further insight into the power of analogy. We look to animals as models of our own cognition. In my own current field of drug development, we use a large toolbox of animal cognition models to test new drugs. We test drugs on animal behaviors that reflect target internal human states. For example, drugs to improve memory in patients with Alzheimer’s Disease are examined in rats swimming in water mazes where they have to remember the right way to go. We can’t read a rat a story and ask recall questions, so behavioral tests are substituted.
While we know that these animal models of human cognition have a variable track record in predicting drug effects in human disease, the philosophical point is that we rely on animals because of analogy to the human brain. Similarly, I think that by analogy, we assume that animals, mammals at least, see, hear, taste, smell, and touch much as we do.
My cats may be without computers, words and music, but I believe they are conscious, experiencing minds. When we look at each other, there’s some one home on both sides. My technological props put me way ahead as a successful organism.
“My technological props put me way ahead as a successful organism.”
Remains to be seen, vis a vis climate change and your definition of “success.”
An argument may be made that cats and dogs are more successful, by having learned how to exploit human nature without the heavy burdens of carrying around a big brain, inflicting pain and suffering on one another for vaguely understood abstract “reasons” and the moral burdens of justice.
I think it was Michael Pollen who said that corn was the most successful organism on the planet having gotten people to rely on it and propagate it world wide. But is parasitism or symbiosis that successful?