Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How a Silicon Valley psychologist can believe consciousness doesn’t exist


Duncan Riach thinks that, with increasing complexity, computers will appear to be conscious too but it’s a misunderstanding for both humans and computers:

“I’ve lost friends over this because a denial of consciousness undermines a final refuge of the arrogance of selfhood: universal consciousness. But even most normal people are strongly insistent that consciousness is a real thing, a special thing, and that they possess it. The problem I have is that there’s not only no evidence for it, but what people seem to be referring to as consciousness is explainable as an effect no more unusual, no less materialistically explainable, than water flowing downhill… – Duncan Riach, “Why I Don’t Believe in Consciousness and What Ai Seems to Be Revealing About It” At Medium

News, “A Silicon Valley psychologist doesn’t believe in consciousness” at Mind Matters News

The problem with Riach’s view is that the final level of complexity is immaterial and the computer is just not going there.

You may also enjoy:

Can a powerful enough computer work out a theory of everything? Some physicists hope so even if it would put them out of work. But is it possible?

Seversky Darwinists cannot believe in anything beyond that which is physical. To admit the mind is separate from the brain, is to disprove Darwin. Darwin allows for nothing to exist beyond that which is physical, Everything else is nothing more than an illusion. The side believing an illusion is the side of Darwinism. BobRyan
Which the dude in the other thread apparently solves this by claiming it’s 100% the brain stem AaronS1978
To deny consciousness is to deny ourselves, which is absurd. The problem is explaining how our conscious mind arises from the physical brain. Seversky
News, while I agree that this guy is talking nonsense, immaterial is simple, not complex. Complex are material things as "composed of" stuff. EugeneS
I wonder if Riach has ever read philosopher Richard Swinburne's "Are We Bodies or Souls?" and if so, how he escapes the conclusion of Swinburne's argument that our essential being is that of an immaterial soul. Dick
He claims that human consciousness is "explainable" as a material effect, and that there is no evidence otherwise. I submit that it is the claim of a materialistic explanation that is lacking in evidence, and suspect that what Riach would offer as his "explanation" would involve a lot of hand-waving. EvilSnack
Psychologist, is without a doubt the most useless of all professions. willspeaks
A machine that can do what he proposes isn't even new. Doesn't require any computing power. A printing press can print "I am and you are too". The magnificent clocks made in the 1200s could mysteriously display a series of letters spelling out "I am and you are too". The Magic 8-ball could randomly pop up the message in its mysterious window. polistra
Any psychologist who cannot accept just how different the human mind is from animals, those abilities we possess such as writing and designing, is incapable of doing their jobs. BobRyan
+1 > there’s not only no evidence for it... So, what's his preferred explanation for a wave function collapse? That is, If he even knows what it is, which I doubt. Eugene
This guys an idiot AaronS1978

Leave a Reply