by Daniel Yim
But more crucially, let’s suppose that one day we can discover, or create, a physical body based on silicon instead of carbon, and this body is conscious. This is conceivable—meaning only that we don’t yet know enough to rule it out. Such a body would not be a computer, and the conceivability of such a body has no bearing on the fact that a computer can’t be conscious.
(Here, to avoid unnecessary verbal complications, I’m skipping over the fact that according to the quaint argot of “artificial intelligence,” any object, such as a screwdriver or a paperweight, or a brain, is defined as being “a digital computer.” Here I’m following ordinary speech, where “a computer” is something like my laptop, whereas a screwdriver, a paperweight, or a human brain are not “computers.”)
We can transfer the substrate ‘argument’ to the case of Pinocchio. Since we can’t rule out the possibility that consciousness could have a different substrate, therefore (logical slip) we can’t rule out that possibility that a block of wood could become conscious, and therefore (another logical slip) a block of wood could “in principle” be conscious. We seem to have proved that a block of wood could do the trick as well! But we know that can’t be right, because we happen to know that the idea of a block of wood becoming conscious is totally silly. We have been handed something that looks a bit like an argument but is actually bogus through and through.
As far as we can tell, the cosmos is empty of consciousness except as this has arisen in animal brains. But this, of course, doesn’t show that consciousness couldn’t arise in a different physical system (or hasn’t already). So, we may speculate, there could be consciousness arising from a different type of physical system, perhaps very different in some ways from the animal brains we know about.
In Whipping Star (spoiler alert), Frank Herbert supposes that stars are conscious and that they can intervene in the interactions of other conscious beings such as ourselves. We can’t prove this isn’t true, but I suspect that if civilization and science survive for a couple of hundred more years, we will establish the physical essentials of consciousness, and thus be able to prove that stars can’t possibly be conscious.
We do not know of any consciousness except in animal bodies. At one time people attributed consciousness to natural forces, but we now know this to be false. At one time people believed they had observed ghosts or other disembodied consciousnesses (though in many versions the ghosts have bodies of sorts). But we have learned that ghosts, like the Martian canals, or like the Loch Ness Monster, or like the spontaneous generation of living organisms from dirt, though once frequently observed, simply cease to be observed when the observation procedures are tightened up.
Consciousness is a real physical property produced by a physical system. Consider any other property which can be produced by a physical system—say, stickiness (I mean literal stickiness, like the stickiness of Scotch tape). Can we write a computer program that would produce stickiness? No, never. Stickiness arises because of the specific structure of certain kinds of molecules. We can simulate stickiness in a computer program, that is, we can generate mathematical models of physical bodies which are sticky—they behave in the simulation as if they were sticky. But they are not really sticky. It’s no use saying that if computing power can be increased billions-fold, we will one day be able to get stickiness out of software. This is forever an absurdity. We may, of course, find or create sticky physical substances that have not existed before, and no doubt there are ways to do this. But we have to step outside the software to do it. We are then no longer simulating; we are replicating.
As it is with stickiness, so it is with consciousness. We may, perhaps, be able to bring into being new types of physical systems, in some ways radically unlike the animals we’re familiar with, which will be conscious. The argument that we don’t know that today’s animals are the only things which can be conscious points to the possibility of different types of physical systems which might be conscious; it doesn’t point to the possibility that software might become conscious.
One More Thing
If we did create a new type of physical system which could be conscious, it doesn’t follow that we would inflict upon these creatures a purposely false understanding of their place in the world.
We’ve seen that the arguments for software becoming conscious are more rhetorical than reasonable, and that the idea is, when all’s said and done, more than a bit fanciful. But there is another point we can raise against it. That is the question of the motive for any advanced civilization to create such a “simulated” fake world. Just as fans of The Matrix have trouble with the motive, so the theorists of a simulated world have trouble with the motive.
To condemn millions of minds to living in a fake world is obviously immoral, especially if that fake world is full of terrible suffering (real suffering, actual agony, not simulated suffering, which would be no suffering at all) which could easily have been eliminated by writing the program differently. And if it were possible to create real minds within software, then such minds would have their own way of experiencing the world, their own emotions, objectives, and sensibilities, no doubt dramatically different from those of mammals like us. There would be a moral imperative to provide conditions conducive to the flourishing and fulfillment of such software creatures (or not to create them in the first place).
No one will ever be able to create conscious software. But just supposing they could, it would be morally wrong for them to do it in such a way that these new software-minds were trapped in a fake world of illusion, instead of being able to reach out and grasp reality, as we do.
Bibliography
Adams, Scott. 1996. The Dilbert Principle: A Cubicle’s-Eye View of Bosses, Meetings, Management Fads, and Other Workplace Afflictions. HarperBusiness.
———. 1996. Dogbert’s Top Secret Management Handbook: As Told to Scott Adams. HarperBusiness.
———. 1997. The Dilbert Future: Thriving on Stupidity in the 21st Century. HarperBusiness.
———. 1998. The Joy of Work: Dilbert’s Guide to Finding Happiness at the Expense of Your Co-Workers. HarperBusiness.
———. 2001. God’s Debris: A Thought Experiment. Andrews McMeel.
———. 2002. Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel: A Guide to Outwitting Your Boss, Your Coworkers, and the Other Pants-Wearing Ferrets in Your Life. HarperBusiness.
———. 2004. The Religion War. Andrews McMeel.
———. 2007. Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain! Cartoonist Ignores Helpful Advice. Penguin.
———. 2013. How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life. Penguin.
———. 2017. Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter. Penguin.
Allen, Jonathan, and Amy Parnes. 2017. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign. Crown.
Ariely, Dan. 2009. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. HarperCollins.
Aristotle. 1989. Prior Analytics. Hackett.
———. 1999. The Metaphysics. Penguin.
———. 2004. Rhetoric. Dover.
———. 2006. Nicomachean Ethics. Clarendon.
———. 2006. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford University Press.
Bartley, William Warren, III. 1984 [1962]. The Retreat to Commitment. Open Court.
Bateson, Gregory. 2000 [1972]. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. University of Chicago Press.
Beauvoir, Simone de. 2011 [1949]. The Second Sex. Vintage.
———. 1976. The Ethics of Ambiguity. Citadel.
Bernays, Edward. 1928. Propaganda. Liveright.
Bostrom, Nick. 2003. Are We Living in The Matrix? The Simulation Argument. In Glenn Yeffeth, ed., Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy, and Religion in The Matrix. BenBella.
———. 2005. Why Make a Matrix? And Why You Might Be in One. In William Irwin, ed., More Matrix and Philo
sophy: Revolutions and Reloaded Decoded. Open Court.
Brafman, Ori, and Rom Brafman. 2008. Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior. Doubleday.
Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy. The National Interest (September 6th).
———. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton University Press.
Brewster, Sir David. 1855. Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton. Constable.
Brown, Derren. 2007. Tricks of the Mind. Channel 4.
———. 2017. Happy: Why More or Less Anything Is Absolutely Fine. TW Adult.
Buffett, Warren. 2012. Tap Dancing to Work: Warren Buffett on Practically Everything, 1966–2013. Penguin.
Camus, Albert. 1961 [1945]. Resistance, Rebellion, and Death. [Includes Letters to a German Friend.] Knopf.
———. 1991 [1955]. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Vintage.
———. 2013 [1942]. The Outsider. Penguin.
Carnegie, Dale. 1981 [1936]. How to Win Friends and Influence People. Simon and Schuster.
Cassidy, John. 2013. The Reinhart and Rogoff Controversy: A Summing Up. The New Yorker (April 26th).
Cernovich, Mike. 2015. Gorilla Mindset. Archangel Ink.
Chakhotin, Sergei. 1971 [1940]. The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Political Propaganda. Haskell House.
Chomsky, Noam. 2002. Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Seven Stories.
Cialdini, Robert. 2012. Influence: Science and Practice—The Comic. Illustrated by Nathan Lueth. Writers of the Round Table.
———. 2013 [1984]. Influence: Science and Practice. Fifth edition. Pearson’s.
———. 2016. Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade. Simon and Schuster.
Cipolla, Carlo M. 1987. The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity. Whole Earth Review.
———. 2011. The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity. Il Mulino.
Coulter, Ann. 2016. In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! Penguin.
Crain, Caleb. 2016. The Case Against Democracy. The New Yorker (November 7th).
Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1992. What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. MIT Press.
Ellis, Ralph, and Natika Newton. 2010. How the Mind Uses the Brain: To Move the Body and Image the Universe. Open Court.
Ellul, Jacques. 1973 [1962]. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. Vintage.
Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton University Press.
Fowler, Erika Franklin, Travis M. Ridout, and Michael M. Franz. 2017. Political Advertising in 2016: The Presidential Election as Outlier? [The Wesleyan Study.] The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics 14:4.
Friend, Stacie. 2007. Fictional Characters. Philosophy Compass 2:2.
Gass, Robert H., and John S. Seiter. 2013. Persuasion: Social Influence and Compliance Gaining. Routledge.
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2008. Rationality for Mortals: How People Cope with Uncertainty. Oxford University Press.
———. 2015. Simply Rational: Decision Making in the Real World. Oxford University Press.
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Peter M. Todd, and the ABC Research Group. 2000. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.
Gini, Al. 2001. My Job, My Self: Work and the Creation of the Modern Individual. Routledge.
Goldstein, Noah J., Steve J. Martin, and Robert B. Cialdini. 2008. Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to Be Persuasive. Simon and Schuster.
Gopnik, Alison. 2009. The Philosophical Baby: What Children’s Minds Tell Us about Truth, Love, and the Meaning of Life. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Gopnik, Alison, and Andrew N. Meltzoff. 1998. Words, Thoughts, and Theories. MIT Press.
Gopnik, Alison, Andrew N. Meltzoff, and Patricia K. Kuhl. 2001 [1999]. The Scientist in the Crib: What Early Learning Tells Us about the Mind. HarperCollins.
Harwood, Robin. 1998. More Votes for PhD’s. Journal of Social Philosophy 29.
Herndon, Thomas, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin. 2013. Does High Public Debt Consistently Stifle Economic Growth? A Critique of Reinhart and Rogoff. Political Economy Research Institute Working Paper #322 (April).
Herrick, Paul. 2015. Think with Socrates: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Oxford University Press.
Irwin, William, ed. 2002. The Matrix and Philosophy: Welcome to the Desert of the Real. Open Court.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Kripke, Saul A. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Harvard University Press.
Krugman, Paul. 2013. Reinhart-Rogoff Continued. New York Times (April 6th).
LaBossiere, Michael C. 2013. 76 Fallacies. Michael LaBossiere.
Lawrence, Matt. 2004. Like a Splinter in Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind the Matrix Trilogy. Wiley-Blackwell.
Le Bon, Gustave. 2002 [1895]. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. Dover.
Lebesque, Morvan. 1963. Albert Camus par Lui-Même. Éditions du Seuil.
Lewis, David K. 2001. On the Plurality of Worlds. Wiley-Blackwell.
Lifton, Robert Jay. 1989 [1961]. Thought Reform and the Pschology of Totalism: A Study of “Brainwashing” in China. University of North Carolia Press.
Lumley, F.E. 1933. The Propaganda Menace. Appleton.
Mackay, Charles. 2009 [1841]. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Wilder.
Morreall, John, ed. 1986. The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mill, John Stuart. 1991 [1861]. Considerations on Representative Government. Prometheus.
Nussbaum, Martha. 2010. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton University Press.
Marcus, Gary. 2008. Kluge: The Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind. Houghton Mifflin.
McPhail, Clark. 1991. The Myth of the Madding Crowd. De Gruyter,
Miller, David. 1994. Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. Open Court
Nye, R.A. 1975. The Origins of Crowd Psychology: Gustave Le Bon and the Crisis of Mass Democracy in the Third Republic. Sage.
Peale, Norman Vincent. 2003 [1952]. The Power of Positive Thinking. Touchstone.
Pellegrini, Mark, Timothy Lim, and Brett R. Smith. 2017. Thump: The First Bundred Days. Post Hill Press.
Percival, Ray Scott. 2012. The Myth of the Closed Mind: Understanding Why and How People Are Rational. Open Court.
Plato. 1997. Complete Works. Hackett.
———. 2007. The Republic. Penguin.
Popper, Karl R. 2002 [1963]. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.
———. 1979 [1972]. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford University Press.
———. 1992 [1983]. Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge.
Pratkanis, Anthony R., and Elliot Aronson. 2001 [1992]. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. Holt.
Reich, Wilhelm. 1980 [1933]. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Reinhart, Carmen M., and Kenneth S. Rogoff. 2010. Growth in a Time of Debt. American Economic Review 100:2.
Sargant, William. 1959 [1957]. Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing. Pan.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. 1993 [1943]. Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology. Simon and Schuster.
Schumacher E.F. 1980. Good Work. Harper Collins.
Searle, John R. 1992. The Rediscovery of the Mind. MIT Press.
———. 1997. The Mystery of Consciousness. New York Review.
Sirkin, Harold L., Justin R. Rose, and Michael Zinser. 2012. The US Manufacturing Renaissance: How Shifting Global Economics Are Creating an American Comeback. A free download from Knowledge@Wharton.
Somin, Ilya. 2016. Democracy vs. Epistocracy. Washington Post (September 3rd).
Stanley, Jason. 2015. How Propaganda Wo
rks. Princeton University Press.
Terkel, Studs. 1974. Working: People Talk about What They Do All Day and How They Feel about What They Do. New Press.
Trotter, Wilfred. 2009 [1916]. Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War. Cornell University Library.
Trump. Donald J. 2015 [1987]. The Art of the Deal. Random House.
Van Inwagen, Peter. 1977. Creatures of Fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly 14:4.
Wolff, Michael. 2018. Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Holt.
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.
Zalta, Edward N. 2003. Referring to Fictional Characters. Dialectica 57:2.
Author Bios
ROBERT ARP works for the US Department of Defense and has many interests in philosophy. See robertarp.com. A time that he used the power of persuasion—as opposed to good reasoning-—to gain a benefit for himself was when he was a junior in high school running for the coveted senior-year position of Student Council President. He had dozens of pointed pencils made that read, “Be Sharp, Vote for Arp” and handed out dozens of buttons that read, “I’m Sharp, I’m Voting for Arp.” Of course, his button read, “I’m Arp, but I’m Still Voting for Arp.” He also had stickers made, and placed them on lockers, in lockers, under lockers, and over lockers . . . He even placed them on the back of bathroom stall doors and on the inside of the urinals.
Everywhere he went, he would unabashedly proclaim, “Be Sharp, Vote for Arp” so that students began echoing the slogan back at him in between class periods. During the big debate between the three candidates in the gym, at which the entire school was present, he purposely chose to go last. When asked the first question by the Principal, who was acting as moderator, “Mr. Arp, if elected, what will you do to better the high school community?” he paused for an uncomfortable amount of time, then leaned into the mic and responded in a deep voice, “NO COMMENT.” A mass hush fell upon the space. A split second later, several gasps were heard. Heads that were looking anywhere other than at the stage snapped forward. And all eyes were definitely on Rob. He continued: “. . . Which is what you will NEVER hear when I’m Student Council President!” People started clapping and cheering, hooting and hollering, and whooping and whistling as Rob laid out his plans to do X, Y, and Z next year for the school—plans that would never materialize because they were so unbelievably batshit crazy you’d have to be smoking salvia to think that they would, despite the fact that he did indeed win the presidency. He had “Mr. President” stitched on his school sweater the day before school started his senior year—what a cocky bastard . . .
