As artificial intelligence advances, robots will become increasingly adept at adapting to their environment; some will even be programmed to talk about their feelings. If such a robot was purchased as a servant, will it be able to simply act as if it feels mistreated or actually be conscious of its exploitation?
The phenomenon of consciousness remains a biological mystery. Despite years of searching for the neural correlates of consciousness, few noteworthy advancements have been made. Alan Turing, the mathematician and philosopher who formally defined concepts such as “computation” and “algorithm,” shied away from the abstract goal of determining if another being could feel. Instead, he settled for testing intelligence. He proposed a pragmatic approach, which later became known as the Turing Test. If a person or computer could chat with another human, without being realized as unintelligent, than the person or computer was intelligent.
Nonetheless, can a robot that passes the Turing Test be considered conscious? This question has an intellectual antecedent – the 19th century debate about vitalism. Vitalism is the belief that living matter is fundamentally different from non-living matter. Vitalists also believe that life cannot be created from inanimate objects. Most people believe this argument was settled in 1828, when Friedrich Wohler synthesized urea from inorganic precursors.
This suggests that the original question regarding whether or not robots are conscious, really asks whether there is something fundamentally special about the brain that explains the ontology of consciousness. Monists believe that all matter is made up of one type of substance. Therefore, a conscious being can be made of carbon, silicon, or any other substance. Dualists believe that the body, including the brain, is made of matter, but that the mind is metaphysical in nature. While dualists have a multitude of unprovable explanations for the origins of consciousness, often framed around the notion of god and the soul, neither group has provided an especially convincing explanation of consciousness.
However, because the mind can influence the body and vice versa, it is necessary that the mind and body share some physical similarity. Otherwise, there could be no bridge connecting the mind and body for communication. Thus, the monists approach seems more reasonable, but the verdict is out until future neurobiological breakthroughs provide conclusive evidence for either theory.
RSS