Someone here

OK so now who's alone ?me or you ? I remember that Descartes asserted (as an axiom) that he could not doubt his own existence because to doubt implies a doubter. Everything else, the entire Universe itself, might exist only as a figment of my overheated dream-state imagination, a Matrix-like existence simulated for an audience of One, leaving him, wondering is there anybody outside his Imagining . One possible answer is no. It is well known in philosophy that this belief is logically unassailable. How can you prove me wrong? First of all, you are a figment of my overactive imagination, a bit of beef gone bad, as Scrooge might say, so only I can prove me wrong This (solipsism) is the worst of all possible Bullshit philosophy. It is the kind of thing that makes ordinary people think of philosophers as Jackasses (according to the previous definition). It was the sort of thing that Johnson was once cheered for ``disproving'' (not really, of course, but who cares) in open debate by banging on a table (where he should probably thumped his opponent's head, although that would only have proven that he was a masochist, not that he was wrong).

Look Leo, it is not possible to prove or disprove 'solipsism'.Solipsism, the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist, cannot be proven or disproven, it is simply a matter of personal opinion, but, it does us no good to live as though it's true.

Maybe there's no ending to the process of waking up .since it's a dream within a dream within a dream . I have eternity to wake up. Why the rush ?

I respect your opinion. But I think this solipsism delusion Is simply false .

Consciousness is not about computing ability or the power to learn by experience. Our present ability was earned over millions of years of evolution and fine tuning. We are not even certain our conscious ability is not ethereal, independent of the brain. Take our nearest relatives they have all the attributes to encourage the human experience but they can not even draw a picture of themselves. We are unique and I can guarantee no machine will ever be classified as conscious in human terms. I will enjoy the efforts and the claims though. I understand your point why you think that computers can't somehow achieve consciousness to some degree or extent. I did my research on AI (artificial intelligence) since I'm not a scientist myself & I'm not into computers. I found out that there are several major projects/research trying to replicate virtual brains through constructing computer-based models. David Gelernter, a computer scientist himself, said that "Even if the model can learn and reason, that doesn't guarantee that it will be a truly intelligent being." Based on his statement, I came to think that there's less potential for computers to acquire consciousness. But who knows what will be possibility in the far future ,say in 100,000 years from now. With the endless advancement of technology. It's not hard to envision a future where one can have an intelligent tete-a-tete with an entity which in it's responses would be difficult to differentiate from our own. There is obviously still a long process of discovery and engineering ahead but when you take into account how long it took to "build" us, it's no time at all! To my mind if it's possible for us to eventually understand what creates consciousness/intelligence, it becomes likewise probable that we can recreate it. Of course it couldn't be exactly like ours, maybe quite different. By analogy, if we were fortunate or unfortunate enough to meet an alien mind - I'm not talking about the ones we've already met - wouldn't it too be expected to be very different from our own? Who's to say if it too isn't a creation of a "prior" Intelligence. Ok thank You.

If device X can perform task A, it must also be able to perform task B. If a computer-operated robot can perform surgery, it must be capable of being conscious. If a toaster can make toast, it must be able to cook a three-course meal. Got it ?

Lol. Relax .

The "degree to which it can be conscious" is in sync with the complexity involved which generates it. One cannot truly define consciousness in terms that would make it provable and indisputable. Most often any such definition "defines" its own limitations and misleads in the attempt. If science cannot define consciousness in concrete salient terms least of all can philosophy. Sometimes the best paradigms are evoked by metaphor as incipient to understanding and often predicated in science as a thought experiment. So what could define conscious in those terms? I usually think of it as if it were a form of music, an orchestration, a fugue of many themes conjoining, reciprocating expressed in every possible configuration. What would be the nature and purpose of complexity if not in the creation of something much greater than the sum of its parts? When it comes down to music as a metaphor for complexity, I can easily subscribe to Beethoven's view that "music is a higher revelation than philosophy". Consciousness to me is the epiphenomena of that process, a nebula forever active and dynamic "consciously" creating its own structures. Who or what first made it incipient is immaterial. An Effect is not required to know the Cause which preceded it.

Let's be more precise. Long ago, humans never chanced upon the idea about the generation of a computer, or the development of nanobots (minute robots). Even the formulation of the idea of using robots to conduct complicted surgeries was once never thought of. Somehow, somewhere along the way it came into existence. If computers and robotics can reach to this level then it surely can reach the state of consciousness or self-awareness. The only thing I'm pointing out is the degree to which it can be conscious. That is what sets them apart from us humans.

If we are talking about the unknown future, say, 300,000 years from now, I guess there's some chance for this to happen, don't know how big though...I have to be a madman to be able to predict the future with certainty, it's not 100% impossible, I admit.

I agree. But aren't we discussing here what might be possible in principle, rather that what limited progress we humans have achieved so far?

I don't understand why you think such things as first person feelings of love, hatred, happiness, etc must always be exclusive to organic brains. Again, this seems to be an anthropocentric prejudice, I cannot see any sound argument which leads to the conclusion that no suitably configured machine could ever experience (for example) love or hatred. Or first person experience.

There is only one way of knowing what happens after death and that is by actually dying.

Granted. Still, creating an electronic neural network that mimics the human brain is totally possible . I believe it will happen With the advent of technology, everything is made easier and more possible. There'll come a time when computer will assemble themselves and function on their own, without the interference of humans. As you can see, many large scale manufacturing units of various industries have become automated. Consider the recent past regarding how much technology has progressed, and this progress will never stop.

Only one way to find out.

Why would I need to know how biological nervous systems work in order to know that allot of research is being done to design a corresponding electronic neural network...which may not work out as expected! Does anybody have to be an expert on any subject before they're authorized to make an observation on it?

Muslims in general are good, decent, honest, kind, law-abiding people who want nothing but the best for their children and for their neighbours and country. Islam on the other hand i.e. the Quran is full of hatred for unbelievers and non-Muslims - almost 60% of the Quran is about denouncing the kufar and descriptions of the preparations of the hell-fires which will torture and consume all unbelievers for the rest of eternity while only Muslims (not sure if Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiya, Sufi??) will enjoy eternal bliss.

I told you I don't know that. I'm only assuming.

I have always asked myself this question: It is (should be) Technically possible to acurately model a human brain, taking any human brain as a blueprint. That would mean modelling any neural connection, modelling the neural cells, and giving them the correct facilities to interact. Now when you turn that on, what happens? I mean it technically is a computer without any software on it. The question begins at how you even turn it on? You would have to start giving it input of some sort, I guess. But would it just start working, creating a constant stream of interactions like our brain seemingly does? It can probably be said that the "Software" in our brain is some kind of hard-wired system of connected nodes, that work like registers on an actual computer, giving the right output when receiving an input. But it still seems strange that that artificial "brain" would start doing things without receiving any instructions. We know very very little of how our brain really works, I believe that we are many many years away of getting a blueprint. and switched on, it might work , why not....but the complete replication of our brain is the absurd part here, I don't even think that we'll ever know how the brain really works with all the needed details to replicate it. On the other hand even if we fully copy the brain from what we see from a functioning brain we still won't know how our brain generates thoughts, it's clear that the neurons light up during tought process but what generates thoughts, are thoughts made from matter or.... ? What are thoughts? What is the mechanism that turns these electrical impulses in what we call thoughts. If computers can through their programming create virtual realities then why shouldn't they be able through even more complex programming - in which man is no longer the dominant agent - create a virtual reality of consciousness which, in a computer, could be a equivalent to a functioning reality, that is, an actual reality. How would we recognize the difference since we also operate in a kind of Virtual Reality field!

Isn't that just because we have a prejudicial anthropocentric view of what a "life" is? Before the invention of the aeroplane humans could not fly and we could have argued that flying is something that birds and insects do but not humans or machines - if humans or machines are ever to take to the air then that cannot be called "flying", it must be something else? I agree that (today) feelings are associated only with biological agents (just as 100 years ago flying was associated only with birds and insects), but who knows what might be possible tomorrow? With all due respect, saying simply that "feelings are just something that machines cannot have" is hardly a logical or sound argument (at best its a definition of "feeling" as something unique to biological organisms, hence argument by definition).

@LastThursday there is no contradiction. because feelings are something unique for a biological organism, they require biological tools to be experienced and to be created, we are talking about something mechanical here, you can only program it to express feelings with words under certain conditions, like if you increase the its voltage , it can say - oh , it hurts. That's far from real feelings though.... I agree that the only agents we know of today that possess feelings are biological agents - but does it follow from this fact that all feelings are necessarily unique to biological organisms? I don't think so. I see no reason in principle why (suitably configured) machines could not possess feelings too. Perhaps we firstly need to agree just what a "feeling" is?

It's all a matter of what concsiousness is, is consciousness the ability to take in and proccess information then spew out new in formation in responce to the original information fed in. if so then yes, or is it a matter of us being so called "alive", where our information processing is a matter of natural evolution. because when you break it down, all consciousness is is cause and effect, all we as humans are is complex chemcials combined to a point where we can precieve the reactions taking place and we delude our selves that we're something special, that our reactions so much more complicated and impressive than any other but its not, we are simply apply one chemical to another and get a reaction, so on that principal even atoms and molecule are conscious on a base level, we're just a little bit more involved in our consciousness, we're just a little bit more aware, but not by much, we just run on survival instincts like and animals, just collecting more chemicals to keep the reaction going, to keep this chemical "consciousness" ticking over, but i digress, in short, yes machines can be conscious, for really deep down on a base atomic level, they already are

It's a three-part question. What is consciousness? Can you put it in a machine? And if you did, how could you ever know for sure? Consciousness — AWARENESS — is truly in the eye of the beholder. I know I am conscious. But how do I know that you are? This is the primary problem. Could it be that my colleagues, my friends, all the people I see on the streets are actually just mindless automatons who merely act as if they were conscious human beings? That would make this question moot. Through logical analogy — I am a conscious human being, and therefore you as a human being are also likely to be conscious — I conclude I am PROBABLY not the only conscious being in a world of biological puppets. Extend the question of consciousness to other creatures, and uncertainty grows. Is a dog conscious? A turtle? A fly? An elm? A rock? We don't have the mythical consciousness meter. All we have directly to go on is behavior.

Lol.

@happyhappy