(with Jeremy Pober)
Over the past several years, I've posted a few times on what I call the "Copernican Argument" for thinking that behaviorally sophisticated space aliens would be conscious, even if they are constituted very differently from us (here, here, here, here). I've also posted a few times on what I call the "Mimicry Argument" against attributing consciousness to AI systems or robots that were designed to mimic the superficial signs of human consciousness (including current Large Language Models like ChatGPT and Claude) (here, here, here).
Finally, I have a circulatable paper in draft that deals with these issues, written in collaboration with Jeremy Pober, and tested with audiences at Trent University, Harvey Mudd, New York University, the Agency and Intentions in AI conference in Göttingen, Jagiellonian University, the Oxford Mind Seminar, University of Lisbon, NOVA Lisbon University, University of Hamburg, and the Philosophy of Neuroscience/Mind Writing Group.
It's a complicated paper! Several philosophers have advised me that the Copernican Argument is one paper and the Mimicry Argument is another. Maybe they are right. But I also think that there's a lot to be gained from advancing these arguments side by side: Each shines light on the boundaries of the other. The result, though intricate, is I hope not too intricate for evaluation and comprehensibility. (I might still change my mind about that.)
Abstract:
On broadly Copernican grounds, we are entitled to default assume that apparently behaviorally sophisticated extraterrestrial entities (“aliens”) would be conscious. Otherwise, we humans would be inexplicably, implausibly lucky to have consciousness, while similarly behaviorally sophisticated entities elsewhere would be mere shells, devoid of consciousness. However, this Copernican default assumption is canceled in the case of behaviorally sophisticated entities designed to mimic superficial features associated with consciousness in humans (“consciousness mimics”), and in particular a broad class of current, near-future, and hypothetical robots. These considerations, which we formulate, respectively, as the Copernican and Mimicry Arguments, jointly defeat an otherwise potentially attractive parity principle, according to which we should apply the same types of behavioral or cognitive tests to aliens and robots, attributing or denying consciousness similarly to the extent they perform similarly. Instead of grounding speculations about alien and robot consciousness in metaphysical or scientific theories about the physical or functional bases of consciousness, our approach appeals directly to the epistemic principles of Copernican mediocrity and inference to the best explanation. This permits us to justify certain default assumptions about consciousness while remaining to a substantial extent neutral about specific metaphysical and scientific theories.
As always, questions/comments/objections welcome here on the blog, on my social media accounts, or by email to my UCR address.
4 comments:
"The Copernican Principle of Consciousness
requires specifically that consciousness is special" seems an odd statement given that the Copernican Principle is a.k.a. the Principle of Mediocrity.
Apropos mimicry and genealogy, we're kind of overlapping with the space of Design arguments. I immediately wondered if we should be more or less skeptical if engineers claim their AI is explicitly designed to be conscious, and that the only way their system could be so sophisticated in its behavioural repertoire and generation of novelty is via consciousness. One point of mimicry, ISTM, is to get the same short term result for less effort (computation) cf parallel evolution of the same apparatus.
Maybe I sorta get the Copernican Argument---maybe I don't. Duffy makes a point. Your remarks seem cogent to me, if, and only if, space aliens ARE intelligent in a way we would recognize and, more -or -.less, understand. I would, and do, accept that a mature, whitetail deer is intelligent in the sense it recognizes danger and *knows* enough to get out of the way. On a more expansive hand, I suppose we would be on track to presume aliens intelligent were they able to build transportation hardware to get them here from somewhere else...perhaps, somewhen else?
Gemini AI and me...that consciousness and human thought were not separate before copernaism...That's an intriguing perspective.
While it's true that the Copernican Revolution shifted our understanding of our place in the cosmos, it didn't directly address the relationship between consciousness and function. The idea that consciousness and human thought were inseparable before Copernicus is a complex one, and it's not a widely held view among historians or philosophers.
However, it's possible to interpret the pre-Copernican worldview as one where the cosmos and human experience were more intimately connected. Many ancient cultures saw the universe as a reflection of the human soul, and vice versa. This interconnectedness might have led to a less distinct separation between consciousness and function.
It's important to note that this is a speculative interpretation. As our understanding of the human mind and the universe has evolved, so too has our conception of consciousness. While ancient cultures may not have explicitly separated consciousness from function, modern science and philosophy have delved deeper into these concepts, leading to more nuanced and complex understandings
IMO, Arnold makes a salient point regarding speculation. Insofar as a. metaphysics ruled much of how we thought, what we believed early on, and, b. philosophy remains couched in uncertainty and doubt, advances in physics and mathematics enabled us to know more than before: the sky is no longer a limit. It is a portal we may explore, limited only by our ingenuity and technology.
Copernicus, Galileo and the rest would smile with content, seems to me.
Post a Comment