Why computers* will not become self aware.

It seems to me that all Penfield proved about the mind was the he hadn't found it.

 

LOL.. You need to get outside of you bubble. There are really bright men, with credential that back up what I say, in fact, I am just saying what they say.

Just because you self limit your own knowledge, doesn't help your arguments. Expand your mind, listen to the people who are discussing this issue.

I will not do your homework for you, as you don't have to do mine. I have been looking at these issues for 5 decades. We don't have the tools yet to measure, but we sure have experiemental results from credentialed scientists that are favor to this idea that consciousness is non local. Just remember this, if in the 19th century, some scientist brought up the idea of entanglement at the quatum level, you would have went just as hysterical as you are now. For it was outside of your chosen paradigm.

All I see is materialistic arrogance here. And if you really know, what you think you know, you would then know that the materialistic view is based upon an assumption. I won't tell you what that assumption is, for you should know. And if you don't know, you are already over your head. No offense.

 

LOL. The ludicrous side of (*)(*)(*)(*) just hit the fan.

Of course, self awareness may be just God dreaming, that I am self aware. Just a dream, not real. So, your awareness and mine doesn't exist. But if I hit your finger with a hammer, that unreality sure will make you holler like hell. And you will feel great pain. In the midst of feeling that pain, I will tell you, its not real, and I will watch your reaction. LOL And then hit it again, if you didn't believe your pain was an illusion. And keep doing it until you admit that by god, that hurts like hell, because I am self aware. Whether its a dream or not, won't matter much. So it doesn't matter now, that you question self awareness. LOL For its the ludicrous side of (*)(*)(*)(*), hitting the fan.

 

'Computers' (artificial silicium brain structure) will reach the point of self awareness one day, because evolution (time) did that process in our brain (and the brain itself at the same time) organically.
Scientists have to figure out how evolution of the human brain develloped, and how complex human emotion functions, because self awareness comes from survival (brain expanded), thus from complex emotion.

 

How so is a brain mechanical, essentially so? You are correct brains and computers are fundamentally different in operation, if I understood you correctly.

But why would a machine that wasn't self aware claim and feign otherwise? If we could read the machines program we would know one way or another. If the self awareness program wasn't there, we could be sure the machine was or was not self aware.

reva

 

I agree. Penfield could not find the mind in the brain, and could not find the mind was entirely created by the brain.

reva

 

You are pipe dreaming, IMO. We have a better chance of developing warp drive. The odds are better for that.

The hard problem here is actually being able to understand consciousness. And whether it is only a material process as the materialists assume, or if it is something other than that. If it is only a material process, there is a chance of course, when the day comes that we actually figure it out completely, or enough to replicate that understanding. But if it isn't solely a material process, then it will never happen. For this is the fundamental issue here. And whether we will be able to do it, depends upon what consciousness is. For consciousness surely has to be there for AI to ever exist.

I don't think consciousness is a material process, that the brain creates it. But as materialism, its basic tenet cannot be proven, neither can my own views. For me, it just seems more logical, rational, that consciousness is not a by product of matter. And if it isn't, that has its own far reaching implications, and would change the way we see ourselves in this universe. It would be like classical physics discovering quantum mechanics. A complete change in paradigm on reality. Now, the implications of quantum mechanics is still not in our consciousness, for all of us are still seeing the universe using the paradigm of classical physics. But that will change as time moves forward. When we have a paradigm that takes into account QM, and it changes our perception of reality, a paradigm shift will occur.

 

Even if evolution created sentience and I am not so sure it did, there is absolutely no guarantee that evolution would repeat an mutation, biologically or in a machine
replica.

There are theories but they are very general in nature. As far as your second sentence goes, I don't understand, please clarify?

reva

 

" More or less computers and brains are the same " is what they think. Well no. First prove me that you can replicate a human mind and consciousness by building it with your mechanics, then i will agree with you.

 

Well, the can give you a promissory note. Which is all they can do.

Here we are, not having a clue what consciousness is, but we assume it is this, or that, and not actually understanding it, we make these claims that we will replicate what we have no clue about. The absurdity is lost on them though.

The brain is much more than a computer. It is more than just a sum of its parts. We are like chimps, who come upon a computer, and believe we can replicate it without an understanding of how it works, while assuming there is a little chimp inside it, doing the calculations. If you try to tell them, there is no chimp inside it, they cannot let go of their beliefs, and will then try to replicate it, using a chimp. And even if one day they manage to get a chimp inside it, it will still no work like what they found. So they will try other chimps, and keep doing that, never being able to understand no chimps are involved in the way that computer works. But there will be many chimps who will claim they can still do it, using a chimp, and won't listen to the smart chimp that says, their assumptions are simply wrong assumptions.

So the materialists will eventually have to see, that how they thought the brain worked was the wrong assumption. But given the entrenched materialism, it will be just as difficult for them to accept their assumptions were wrong, as those chimps I mentioned. So, they will give us the promissory notes, as the chimps did. And that is the tremendous power of human beliefs.

 

I am graduating in May with a B.S. in Physics and going to graduate school for the neurosciences. The neuroscience community has an almost unanimous agreement that the brain produces consciousness. The idea that it is a receiver and that consciousness is being "beamed" into our heads is not an idea held by any credible scientist because it isn't falsifiable. The work of Penrose and Hamerhauff is that the microtubules in neurons are capable of performing quantum computations, the premise is that consciousness can only be supported on a quantum computer. Their work however does not have any conclusive evidence. Furthermore, please don't bring up the concept of non-locality into the discussion since Bell's Theorems are far above anyones understanding of quantum mechanics in this forum.

You cling on to your beliefs that man is the most special creature in the universe, that the universe is here for only our desires and wishes, and the secret that makes us special cannot be described by any scientific endeavour because it is endowed to us by some supreme creator. It is not I who is limited in the pursuit of knowledge but it is you since the above paradigm is one you most likely will never see beyond, never entertain an idea that contradicts such a paradigm, and never reach for the knowledge past it.

 

AI does not need to replicate the brain and has nothing to do with the human brain. AI is an intelligent machine programmed specifically for certain tasks. If we assume that AI can create a police officer, and if the AI has a weapon which can kill, then the computer programming/algorithms would be very problematic for me. Why would a non-living machine need a weapon...certainly not to protect itself? There would be no way for AI to know who is a danger and who is not. We think these things because we see them in fictional movies...

 

If we were stupid enough to give AI deadly weapons or other ability to kill and/or injure, then we're asking for trouble. If we use AI outside of this area...I see no problems...

 

AI is programmed to make specific decisions based on specific input...nothing random. AI are machines and not human. I believe computing power will eventually match and exceed the human brain, however, this does not mean to me that we give AI the ability to kill or destroy...

 

You see, about AI the common imaginary submits to our attention "entities" with very human characteristics. I guess it's a kind of unconscious reflex of our mind.

AI will never have self awareness, until they will be produced by rational humans.

 

If brain function is not the result of circuit impulse patterns then how do you explain that when certain regions of the brain are turned on and off (via transcranial magnetic stimulation, optogenetics, and deep brain stimulation) there is a loss of functionality? Why is it your opinion that from such complex processes consciousness cannot emerge? What is the underlying fundamental reason that consciousness cannot emerge from the combinatorial electrochemical interactions and endogenous fields produced in the brain? What is the fundamental information processing algorithm required for consciousness if it is not produced from the above interactions?

 

And how exactly would one falsify the underlined proposition? Hmmmm?

 

just like a soul can enter a human machine when it is ready, a soul can enter a digital body as well when it's ready

 

This proposition is based on observations of EEG and MRI data in conjunction with specific bodily functions. In fact there is an entire neural map of your body in your brain. There are specific brain regions that when stimulated correspond to stimulation from the external environment from your peripheral nervous system (PNS). If for instance there did not exist a region in the brain responsible for an observed function then the proposition is falsified. If there is no impulse from the brain activating neurons in the PNS then what is?

 

The problem with the speculation that the brain is merely a transceiver of consciousness is that the the nature of this signal cannot be electromagnetic. In other words it can't be a signal that is carried by electromagnetic waves passed the skull and into neurons. It would have to originate in the brain. This then implies the signal must be of quantum mechanical origins, namely non-locality. The problem of course is that the brain is a warm and wet environment in which the blind processes of evolution most likely didn't develope machinery to sustain a biological environment necessary to perform quantum computations. Even if this were the case it doesn't imply that the brain is a receiver but simply a biological quantum computer.

 

Granny wantin' to know what we gonna do when dem robots get so smart - dey won't need people anymore?...

Scientists: Superintelligent Robots May Be Dominant Form of Life
December 19, 2014 ~ According to a group of prominent U.S. scientists, the dominant form of life in the universe is likely not biological creatures... but superintelligent robots.

 

I think that micro-organisms that make up 90% of our bodies is the direction we should take in solving self-awareness of the human brain.

 

Never say never...I'd like to believe there are few to no limits on technology. AI is not about self-awareness...they are programmed machines who make specific decisions based on specific sensory input. At some point in time we will replicate human brain functions and they will be connected to some form of machine...perhaps a quasi human machine. If we let these machines clean our houses then no problem when there is a glitch, however, if we give them deadly weapons and ask them to police humans...big problemo! If at some point we give AI the capability to self-learn, then we must deal with the outcome of this just as we do when humans go on a tangent and do stupid things...

- - - Updated - - -

When will Model # WIFE be available?

 

A thing is sure: we are enough crazy to do that ... so get ready for SkyNet ...

 

It took hundreds of millions of years for humans to reach where we are.
Saying computers will never have consciousness cause we haven't achieved it in ~50 years. . .bit short sighted.

Lets come back to this question in 1 million years (which is barely a blip in time as we know it).