Someone here

@Nahm intersting that you say this because you are agreeing with me that consciousness is a byproduct of brain activity and not a mystical facet fundamental to existence itself as Leo said. For me personally I am not sure. I think that if we put the energy we put in to electronics in to biology we would get where we want to go much faster as biology is far more advanced than our current technology all our newest technology mimics biology. why make the extra step for ourselves? oh right, cause if you can grow it you can get it for free and that would help everyone. not just the rich that will use it to fatten their wallets

I believe that the capability exists for an artificial equivalent of the human mind, although not necessarily that we as humans have the ability to create it. Consciousness is, in my belief, simply an illusion conjured by the mind.. a result of chemical reactions in just another bodily organ. A digital emulation of these behaviors = AI think that the only way a computer could have a consciousness and a soul would be to be made to work in conjunction with a brain of any animal (a dual processor) attached. naturally, I assume the most practical would be a human brain. this brain could be built from synthetic origins in a lab or from a young but dead human. I think only the one from the dead would have at least some remnants of the first owners soul.

The reason why artificial intelligence has not been created before now is because the sheer implementation complexity of the project described above is, without the very best cleanliness of code, insight, and ceaseless diligence, more than a lifetime project, maybe even with today's massive collection of support source code libraries, like those dedicated to language parsing and decision trees, and-of course-the invention of the internal representation known as object oriented. In conclusion: the above project is capable of knowing about itself, what it is doing, and why. Given time, it is capable of independently collecting enough information to choose to act independently in order to better service it's purpose. (And emotion through random mutation (which does occur inside computers) lol).

Since Leo is not posting new videos for a while.. I thought let's re-watch some of the old content. And of course the best stuff. -what is Truth? https://youtu.be/rWEpP8ro-Mg Understanding infinite intelligence. https://youtu.be/bQSUu2CRRBE Why reality cannot be a simulation because it leads to the infinite regress problem. All juicy episodes I've been rewatching full of metaphysical golden nuggets. Feel free to suggest your favorite episodes to rewatch of course. Peace,

Why shouldn't it be possible? I don't think that it's improbable; as long as technology is capable of emulating the behavior of neurons, the interactions of said neurons is consciousness, is it not? As I stated before, I don't believe definitively that humans are capable of such technology, but I do believe that it can be done. Of course, it's always possible that there is much more to humanity than we are capable of perceiving and inferring

I was talking about what's required for artificial intelligence to become conscious or to be considered conscious. For example... A child walks into the room holding a knife in one hand and a teddy bear in the other. The mother screams 'put that down.' The child drops the knife - but you can't teach that kind of thing to a computer because it processes data in a linear manner as a result of the physical properties of electrical circuits - and because there are a potentially infinite number of variables on this theme. There may be a way around it, but processing power is not the question or the answer Of course I can't give a very accurate response since I (like everyone else) don't know what exactly consciousness or a "soul" is. My intuition tells me that consciousness requires at the very least a sense of self awareness. Surely consciousness constitutes much more than this, but even if we break it down to the very small puzzle piece of "self awareness", I don't see it happening in a computer simply because I don't think that the sense of self is learned. Computers can be programmed to learn, and that is all. If there is some component to consciousness that is inherent, then I don't believe computers could obtain it. Of course it's miracle that there is something. Anything at all. And I'm very happy with the fact that I exist and this amazing universe exists. Thank you for pointing that out.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. The human brain has a raw computational power of 0.1 quadrillion processes/second. Yes, I said quadrilion. This is, for those who are lazy, basically.... 100,000,000,000,000... half of Bill Gate's bank statement pretty much. I have a computer sitting in my floor that processes a total of 9,700,000,000 processes per second, and a super computer has roughly two to five thousand processors better than mine. Mine has two dinky ones, comparitivly. So, lets say at the low end this super computer has... two thousand processors, all 200Gb(can buy these as a civilian). (1Gb = 1,000,000,000 processes per second, basically) It is already sitting at 400,000,000,000,000Gb, or processes, per second. Wait a moment, we passed ourselves. Random thought, as we all know, is not random, it is a mixture of chemicals inside of our brain inwhich fires certain neurons in certain patterns, and voila, randomized thought process. Incidently, this chemical process can be controlled with medication, much like programming. So yes, if we truly set our minds and pocket books to the task, AI would not be overly difficult, it would be like raising a child. We already have computers that learn on their own, all they lack is that little spark of... well, patterning. You must remember, we are aware of our surroundings via five senses, without them we'd know nothing and be nothing. Unfortunately, we have yet to figure out how to send data into a computer that replicates a conscious individuals ability to... feel the world. To have emotions, a tightness in your, well processor, when you see something sad, etc. We are learning how to give humans their feelings (such as Touch, Taste, Sight, Hearing and Smell) using machines, its only the next logical step to simply do the same in reverse. Give human sensation to machine, as the individual machines -already- do it on their own. We ask why we are here because we know we will one day be gone, and unfortunately a computer only knows the time you tell it. We have never attempted to build a computer that, quite litterally, attempted to replicate a human brain as far as function. If we studied a mind for say, a year, we could likely then (As we already have computers that can turn human processes into code) simply allow the computer to learn how the mind reacts to in myriad of stimuli. From this, as we have found with our current 'Learning Computer' technology, they can base other experiences off of previous ones, simply not well. This is because these computers are in small, light, weaponized machines, and in vehicles. Neither of which can handle simply the weight of the processors, let alone the rest of a mainframe. We have even built Quantum Computers... which litterally, by themselves, blow the figures for human thought out of the water. Thought being meerly variables, and technology advancing at a pace of two times per day... well, it may not be all that long.

What is consciouseness? I believe it is a form of self awareness. To be specific, at least a basic understanding of who you are, what you are doing, and why you are doing it. Each of these things can be taught to a computer program, it's name, purpose and it's actions. But unless software can evolve to the point where it can parse and apply this knoledge, it is not self-awareness. At first, it is impossible to see how one might write software to the express purpose of being self aware. Nothing, however can be created to fulfill this purpose and nothing else. What is the necessary prerequisite functioning?

------------------------- I just realized that I did not answer the thread's question. I believe that, if enough fundamental programming is entered into the machine, it could replicate life easily. The human mind, on average, processes 1 terrabyte of information per second. Our computer technology already is beginning to come close to this speed, and certain mainframe computers have the processing power and vastly surpasses it.

Not just my intuition, but everyone's intuition is the most reliable source of information on this planet. We are programmed beings. Instincts tell us more about the outside world than our abstract thought does. Allowing that abstract thought led to a myriad of discoveries. Intuition has kept us alive and for that I think it is stronger than any other source of "evidenc

I know disembodied spirits exist through indirect observation and personal accounts. Probably even in the same methods ( although not the same context) as how physicists proof the existence of atoms. I think if people would open their minds and stop waiting for science to tell them when to jump they would see that there is more to this world than what we perceive through "evidence" and "facts". Not that I think science is bad, or wrong, or a waste, but there are some people who would eat rat poison if a scientist said it had antioxidants in it!

Some points to consider: 1. Whether or not a computer is created artificially by human beings has no relevance to whether it could be conscious. Some human genes have already been synthesized: no physical principle would prevent the eventual artificial creation of human chromosomes, which could become a baby through cloning and surrogate mothers. 2. Whether or not a computer is a tool has no relevance to whether it could be conscious. People have been used as tools for centuries. A rickshaw driver works as a motor and a front wheel drive. A cashier works as a dispenser or a vending machine. A flagger works as a traffic signal. 3. The very existence of God and the human soul is a matter of controversy. Notwithstanding fake mediums and the unending sophistries of religious apologists, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any disembodied spirit. What is more, even if we grant the existence of disembodied spirits, we would still have nothing but arbitrary and baseless religious proclamations to support the contention that God would never ensoul a sufficiently sophisticated computer.

@Knowledge Hoarder good job. Keep going man. ?

Porn specifically is extremely unhealthy and this has been proven recently. of course there is a distinction between what kind of porn you watch (vanilla stuff vs fucked up shit) and how often do you watch Yada Yada Yada.. The issue I see is it's so easy to become an addiction. Because it's extremely pleasant unlike video games or fast food. Especially for young boys with you know with an explosion of hormones during puberty age. the thing is.. exposure to porn results in dopamine spikes in the brains of the porn-users.. However.. after being exposed to many graphic images.. the brain becomes de-sensitised and unable to be satisfied by ordinary sexual encounters. now what is needed is sexually extreme experiences and hardcore pornography to become sexually aroused. You get how this works? What wasn't so popular and known untill recently as I mentioned in OP that watching porn causes physical damage in the brain.. Researchers found less grey matter in the brains of men who watched large amounts of sexually explicit material relative to those who watch it casually or were not exposed to it at all. So I am actually building a case here that porn is harmful and should be avoided. Watch video below for more information..

I am satisfied that, if civilization does not break down beforehand, people will manufacture artificial analogues to the human brain such that the standard methodological arguments for the existence of other minds will apply to them in the same way that they apply to human beings. However, as others have pointed out, this is not the same as asking whether digital computers *as we know them* might one day become sophisticated enough to be not only intelligent, but conscious, and even ensouled. So far, most of the evidence presented against this possibility on this thread is irrelevant to the question

No. I see fapping and porn with a negative attitude now that I don't even want to do it any more. It's so toxic and destructive of a habit. At least thats how I personally see it.

Good job

What consistes of consciousness, as to say that a human is such, one would have to understand what consciousness is. NOTE: Most people walk around asleep, unaware. The Zen Master Buddha when asked what is he, if he is not an angel or a God, He said he was "Awake" There for one must be awakened to the true reality of the world befor one can say they are conscious. Our thoughts are only HOUSED in the neron, the Thought is not the neron, nor is the wine the bottle..see. The Thought is actually a 'spark' or electricity in the brain, it travels along nerons from Cell to Cell..The Neron is not a cell, but a multi celled structure that connects the brain cells together, they are the pathways which thought travels down.. NOTE: Under all the research done, there has never been found any 'person' or 'observer' in the brain. No one can find the person with in. Nerons like braincells are made of atoms you are right, and an atom is basicly a necules that is serounded by a cloud of photons, photons that pop in and out of existand. the bubble they form is empty, as are they, the Neclus they rotate around also is basicly hollow and pops in and out of existence..so as you see the thought is not there, because Electricity is not made up of atoms, it runs through them, they like the nerons are nothing but the pathway for the thought, which in turn is nothing, is not even there, like the non existance observer in the mind.

think it already is conscious because the materials it is made of are conscious (atoms ). The way I see it, everything in the universe knows that it exists and that other things exist around it. Think about this: 1. Human beings are conscious 2. What makes us conscious is our brain 3. What makes us conscious is our thoughts, which basically reside in the brain 4. Our thoughts are held in neurons 5. Neurons are living ( they are cells, cells are living biological units) 6. Neurons are made of atoms 7. If the neurons are made of atoms and the neurons are alive, then I believe that it is because all of the neuron's atoms are alive as well. That's basically my opinion

January clean.

I agree. I think only a life form can have consciousness because consciousness influences will,and only life can use free will , an object does not have free will, in order to give a computer free will you have to give it life and then it kills the definition of a computer definition of a computer Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations.

Love that. Computers are made by humans, or by other computers than at some point were made by humans. We can imput feelings into our computers and they can seem as if they read our minds. Of course, it's because a human programmed them to do so. I think computers do not breath, therefore they have no soul. A conscious seems possible if they are programmed to behave like a human.

people are "conscious" so are plants, other animals, a lot of people think consciousness is being able to think, our thinking nature is just that, it's just different, not necessarily better or clearer or more advanced, it's just how we operate consciousness, for a lot of people, is free will, and in that absurd idea, it's the ability to choose and see our decisions being carried out but blah blah blah, i think i'm rambling We need to define consciousness first.

Conscious or not, we are probably not far from a point whereby machines acquire so compellingly accurate impressions of consciousness that we will find ourselves assuming it to be the case, be it truly consciousness or otherwise.

If you are talking about computers taking over us humans or gaining power over us, I guess you could put it in the way that we are overly reliant on computers to the point of the subsequent inability of functioning without computers. That is highly possible. Bleh, sometimes, technology could be a pain in the ***