# Can Computers be Conscious?

**URL:** <https://forum.kirupa.com/t/can-computers-be-conscious/231521>\
**Category:** random\
**Created:** [July 5, 2007, 2:47pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/can-computers-be-conscious/231521 "2007-07-05T14:47:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Al6200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Al6200](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/Al6200)\
**Post date:** [July 5, 2007, 2:47pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/can-computers-be-conscious/231521/1 "2007-07-05T14:47:41Z")

</div>

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about whether computers, or any man-made machine for that matter can be conscious.

I personally have come to the conclusion that the answer is a 100% YES. Humans are essentially a piece of biological machinery, with neural networks, and there are lots of Java algorithms for neural networks.

But to hopefully provide a balanced outlook, here are two of the more famous opinions on computer intelligence:

Computers can’t be conscious:

> **[Chinese room](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room)**
>
> The Chinese room argument holds that a program cannot give a computer a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness",\[a\] regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. The argument was first presented by philosopher John Searle in his paper, "Minds, Brains, and Programs", published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences in 1980. It has been widely discussed in the years since. The centerpiece of the argument is a thought experiment known as the Chinese room. The a...

Computers can be conscious:

[http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/chinsys.htm](http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/chinsys.htm)  
[http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/chinrob1.htm](http://www.ptproject.ilstu.edu/chinrob1.htm)

I’ve read some other good refutations of the Chinese room thought experiment in copyrighted books. But basically a lot of the arguements revolve around the fact that the Chinese room bases itself on intuition rather than on real proofs, and that it fails to show that the brain isn’t a Chinese room.

I personally disagree with Searle’s Chinese room on the grounds that it assumes all computer programs do are “Search Algorithms” where every single possibility is evaluated or compared and one is selected. Many algorithms use logic and neural networks, as well as pattern recognition and abstraction.

Also, unlike Searle I believe that one cannot draw a line between “real” and simulated events. So a neural network on a computer has a potentially isomorphic relationship with the human mind, and therefore has the ability to cause consciousness. Searle refutes this by saying that a fire in a video game is just a simulated fire, and no one burns down. But clearly the fire, relative to some observes, is a real fire. But relative to Searle it is merely an idea, which is what I like to call “Relative Materialistic Functionalism”. And that’s basically my outlook on life.