What Creates Consciousness?

[durangodawood]

For this Christian worldview, it's biblical. A machine can not be programmed to comprehend all human emotions thoughts and desire.

Where in the Bible do I find this view? Im certainly no Bible expert, but Ive never heard anything about the limits of thinking machines there.

I'm not sure a machine will be able to feel pain no matter how many sensors it has because we have a biological brain which itself has powerful computing power. We have neuroplasticity which rewires our brain where whereas a machine at the basic level is ones and zeros and pure logic.

Machines are soon going to be able to reprogram themselves - if not already.

 

[Laodicean60]

Im certainly no Bible expert, but Ive never heard anything about the limits of thinking machines there.

No, it's not in the bible lol. Even this nonexpert knows that. My rant about machines was to differentiate humans from machines. Someday we might have the Terminator but I don't think it'll be a conscious being it'll always be operating through a program.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Brian Green makes a good point. We cant really say what mass and electric charge are. We can describe them and talk about what they do but they are primitive fundamentals.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

For life, yes. For consciousness - no idea.

Don/t we first need life before consciousness?

 

[Larniavc]

No AI will never be conscious but will do a very good imitation of consciousness.

I think it is difficult to say with any certainty 'never'. There is always the possibility that there is something unconsidered to be discovered.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, I am not too interested in this useless exchange with you. BTW, you mentioned the dispensation of consciousness, while its actually a dispensation of conscience - a totally unrelated concept.

Trophy, my sincerest apology.

Looking back over this thread, I noticed I called it "Dispensation of Consciousness," to which you corrected me to "Dispensation of Conscious."

You are absolutely correct, and I was wrong.

Sorry about that!

 

[Ace777]

Machines are soon going to be able to reprogram themselves - if not already.

They do not program themselves. That is what my son does for a living. He can not even program them from a remote location, he has to be onsite. He is preparing now for a project he will be onsite for 6 weeks. It is a million dollar contract. The company he works for just signed a contract with Musk at Space X in texas but I to not think he will be working on that project.

 

[Ace777]

I noticed I called it "Dispensation of Consciousness,"

If you ever find yourself confused, stay conscious of what your conscience is telling you!

 

[Ace777]

I think it is difficult to say with any certainty 'never'.

AI started out with a bang but it is starting to fizzle out now.

 

[Ace777]

consciousness--and whether artificially intelligent systems may one day possess it.

The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey G 1968 ‧ Sci-fi/Adventure ‧ 2h 29m deals with this whole issue back before we had personal computers. They came out in 1981. The first IBM and IBM clone computers. I had a Commodore and Amiga but eventually converted to the IBM clone.

 

[Ace777]

No AI will never be conscious but will do a very good imitation of consciousness.

Not the same. To process data is not the same as to process impute from the senses.

 

[Astrid]

I think it is difficult to say with any certainty 'never'. There is always the possibility that there is something unconsidered to be discovered.

" Never" implies a level of knowledge, underdtanding,
and foresight that doesn't exist in this case.

 

[Astrid]

Not the same. To process data is not the same as to process impute from the senses.

The common paramecium processes input.

 

[trophy33]

Because only God creates things in his image and we procreate flesh and blood, not machines.

For example animals have consciousness too.

 

[trophy33]

Don/t we first need life before consciousness?

I should rather say "for biological life". Carbon has some advantages over silicon.

There was also a thought experiment in the OP video - if we will replace one natural neuron by a silicon one, one after another, until the whole brain is made of silicon, will we believe the person if he were saying "I am still here" the whole time? If not, where would be the limit?

 

[AV1611VET]

There was also a thought experiment in the OP video - if we will replace one natural neuron by a silicon one, one after another, until the whole brain is made of silicon, will we believe the person if he were saying "I am still here" the whole time?

Reminds me of: My Bicycle Challenge

 

[trophy33]

Reminds me of: My Bicycle Challenge

The paradox of the Theseus ship would be more analogous.

Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However, it does not reflect the specific issue - replacing a carbon based brain with a silicon based (a different material) one.

 

[AV1611VET]

The movie 2001: A Space Odyssey G 1968 ‧ Sci-fi/Adventure ‧ 2h 29m deals with this whole issue back before we had personal computers.

HAL is IBM, stepped down one letter.

I remember reading in Scientific American (or maybe it was Popular Science) an article stating that, for as intelligent as HAL was, no computer can read lips.

 

[AV1611VET]

The paradox of the Theseus ship would be more analogous.

The Theseus ship deals with the identity of the "new" ship.

Whereas my challenge deals with the age of the "new" bicycle.

In other words, my challenge was to show something can have both a physical age, and an existential age.

Thus the earth could be 4.7 billion years old, but it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

 

[trophy33]

The Theseus ship deals with the identity of the "new" ship.

Whereas my challenge deals with the age of the "new" bicycle.

In other words, my challenge was to show something can have both a physical age, and an existential age.

Thus the earth could be 4.7 billion years old, but it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.

Yes, I mean more analogous for this thread topic/the OP video.