Spike Jonze’s 2013 film Her is about a letter writer named Theodore who falls in love with his phone’s operating system. Theodore is lonely and going through a divorce. One day he sees an advertisement for OS1, a new “artificially intelligent” operating system. The ad states, “It’s not just an operating system, it’s a consciousness.” He purchases it and sets it up to have a female voice. When Theodore asks what he should call her, she chooses the name Samantha. She says that she can grow and change through her experiences like a human. In this paper, I will present philosophers David Chalmers’ and Daniel Dennett’s responses to the idea of consciousness and whether computers can have consciousness, and determine from their reasonings if they
…show more content…
The one thing he couldn’t doubt, however, is that he is conscious. He coined the phrase “cogito ergo sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.” Using this logic, consciousness is defined as awareness of one’s own mind. The Turing test leads us to the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness, introduced by David Chalmers. According to Chalmers, the so-called easy problems of consciousness include: the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, control behavior, and differentiate between wakefulness and sleep. These are easy problems because we can verbally report them. Chalmers says the hard problem of consciousness is explaining how and why we have subjective, conscious experiences. Daniel Dennett rejects the idea of a hard problem. He thinks that experience is nothing more than what the brain is supposed to do. In other words, experience is an easy problem of consciousness. He says that the easy problems drive consciousness, and to separate them from consciousness would hinder our ability to think, feel, and even be conscious. The easy problems and hard problem can only be explained as one cohesive idea and they cannot be separated. Dennett argues against Chalmers and says that consciousness is not a separate entity in the world and natural phenomena will eventually explain …show more content…
Dennett believes that if humans were to design robots complex enough, the robots would be conscious. This is strikingly similar to Chalmers’ belief, despite the fact that their views on consciousness differ greatly. Dennett uses a theoretical scenario where you want to live in the 25th century and the only way you can do so is by freezing your body in a capsule. You must devise some way to supply energy to and protect your capsule. You could could settle down in an isolated location, but if harm would ever come to that location, your capsule would be destroyed and you would die. The best thing would be to have a mobile housing for your capsule, such as a giant robot. The robot should then act for your benefit and survival. This does not mean the robot has free will, however. The robot will have self-control, but you cannot be sure it will act in your self-interest. It will be out of your control, acting partially out of its own will. Many people would claim that this robot does not have its own intentions or desires, that its desires are simply based upon its programmer’s desires. Of course, by this logic, it follows that the robot is not conscious. But Dennett opposes this idea, because you would have to conclude the same about humans. You would have to conclude that humans are survival machines built to preserve genes and goals and our intentions derive from these goals. There would not be any consciousness in that case.
The one thing he couldn’t doubt, however, is that he is conscious. He coined the phrase “cogito ergo sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.” Using this logic, consciousness is defined as awareness of one’s own mind. The Turing test leads us to the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness, introduced by David Chalmers. According to Chalmers, the so-called easy problems of consciousness include: the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, control behavior, and differentiate between wakefulness and sleep. These are easy problems because we can verbally report them. Chalmers says the hard problem of consciousness is explaining how and why we have subjective, conscious experiences. Daniel Dennett rejects the idea of a hard problem. He thinks that experience is nothing more than what the brain is supposed to do. In other words, experience is an easy problem of consciousness. He says that the easy problems drive consciousness, and to separate them from consciousness would hinder our ability to think, feel, and even be conscious. The easy problems and hard problem can only be explained as one cohesive idea and they cannot be separated. Dennett argues against Chalmers and says that consciousness is not a separate entity in the world and natural phenomena will eventually explain …show more content…
Dennett believes that if humans were to design robots complex enough, the robots would be conscious. This is strikingly similar to Chalmers’ belief, despite the fact that their views on consciousness differ greatly. Dennett uses a theoretical scenario where you want to live in the 25th century and the only way you can do so is by freezing your body in a capsule. You must devise some way to supply energy to and protect your capsule. You could could settle down in an isolated location, but if harm would ever come to that location, your capsule would be destroyed and you would die. The best thing would be to have a mobile housing for your capsule, such as a giant robot. The robot should then act for your benefit and survival. This does not mean the robot has free will, however. The robot will have self-control, but you cannot be sure it will act in your self-interest. It will be out of your control, acting partially out of its own will. Many people would claim that this robot does not have its own intentions or desires, that its desires are simply based upon its programmer’s desires. Of course, by this logic, it follows that the robot is not conscious. But Dennett opposes this idea, because you would have to conclude the same about humans. You would have to conclude that humans are survival machines built to preserve genes and goals and our intentions derive from these goals. There would not be any consciousness in that case.