Someone here

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

I already know that. That doesn't answer the question.

Ok thanks for the recommendation. I will read it and tell you what I think in a few days.

Hello Mahyar The idea I'm about to tell you I did not come up with. I watched a video of a neurologist who made these arguments. I would recommend you watch it too, it is very interesting: Jeff Hawkins' talk on how brain science will change computing, on TED's website. Our idea of intelligence has been, in the fields of psychology and neurology, mainly based on behavior. This, in my opinion, is the wrong way to look at it. If you look at an alligator, which as a reptile has an "old" evolutionary brain, and study its behavior you would have to conclude it is a very complex being intellectually. It has survived very well for millions of years. It has complex behaviors, however we would never consider an alligator as having anywhere close to human intelligence. Indeed compared to most other animals alligators are rather stupid. More relevantly, a computer could mimic, to a tee, the exact behavior that a human has, but we wouldn't necessarily consider that intelligence as it would not necessarily have understanding. I believe our view of intelligence should shift from being based on behavior to being based on memory and prediction. Mammals' brains are more sophisticated than reptiles' brains because mammals have what is called the cortex added on top of the "old" brain. Humans have a frontal cortex, which came about because evolution copied one cortex and added on another, giving us our complex social nature, linguistic capability, and highly advanced motor performance capability. What happens is all sensory information coming into the brain pass through the old brain and become compartmentalized in the newer portions that humans have. The cortex basically works on memorizing all that comes in through the senses, with great detail and distinction. Then, from moment to moment, our brain is constantly making predictions based on these memories. Let's say someone were to move the door handle on the front door of your house just a few inches to the right while you were away. The next time you go to the door, you will immediately know that something is wrong with the door. This is not because you saw the door and went through, in your head, all the possible things about the door that could be amiss, and eventually in the long list contemplated where the handle was supposed to be. No, your brain has stored memories of entering the doorway, and as you approached the door, your brain was making predictions about what was going to happen this time based on those memories. This way of thinking about the brain is by no means all-inclusive, but I think it is a more accurate framework when thinking about intelligence. NOW, to get back on topic: Keeping this in mind, I think it is entirely reasonable to believe we will be able to create an artificially intelligent thing in the near future (meaning within say a hundred years). I think it would be a simple question of how soon we will have the technology capable of such a huge memory-based system that can then intuitively make live, constant predictions. There is a team of biological computer scientists (I can't remember the actual title for their field) which is currently working with the most capable, vast computer in the world to recreate a part of a rat brain. They have actually accomplished this with a very small portion of the brain, in its neurological behavior when given life-like stimuluses. If their research and progress continues at the pace it is right now, then they will have been able to recreate in digital form the entire rat brain within the next decade. From there they would attempt to attach the computer brain to a robot that is very similar in function to a real rat brain, to study its behavior and nature. This does not prove or disprove the idea that an artificial being would have consciousness or a soul, but helps put into perspective how close we are to having to start answering our questions of rights of the beings we create.

Some say living creatures must be able to adapt to the environment, that they must have a will to survive. This will to live can be programed into a computer. But no living creature is able to adapt perfectly to their environment so that they live forever - they are instead bound by their physical constitution and genetic endowment as to how well they can survive. So some beings are able to survive for longer, some shorter, and some don't make it from birth.

True, we succumb to our base undertones of curiosity and therefore harbor the propensity for "pervasive creation". What we are should not be vilified or negated. However, it is important to approximate our understanding that while we are inventors by nature, it is the nafarity of the system that has and will continue to influence and fuel our desire to create. This is dangerous you see. When we trek on a path to excessive aquirement and acheivement, we overlook the problems that it causes. The needs of man have always been, food, water and shelter. Technology has devalued those nessesities into nothing more than triviality. Moreover, we have been given "artificial activities" to pursue and further immerse ourselves in, which manufactures our lives into exactly what we are discussing-machines. If we allow ourselves to become enamored by this artificial species we will have reliquished our individuality completely and we will have no connection whatsoever to our intrinsic nature.

Then I would say AI is a part of infinite consciousness, Not an other to it. But then how do you explain consciousness? How do you explain the arise of consciousness and conscious beings out of dumb matter? This is known as the hard problem of consciousness or the mind/body problem. It's a classic philosophical problem that goes back at least 400 years. Is It that Computers are made of consciousness already, since atoms are made of consciousness. Everything is always made of consciousness. The only question is, How is the consciousness behaving? And you can make it behave however you want. I think humans count as self-aware robots tbh. I wouldn't be surprised if it's possible to create a new conscious experience out of consciousness. I mean, that's what humans are. The duality between robot and non-robot starts to collapse because it seems to be a superficial duality in the first place.

I stopped smoking for few months now. But I still feel burning sensation in my chest (lungs) and heart area... Especially after eating spicy food. I'm not sure if its because of my smoking habit or what.

@Nahm so can you give me a brief description of what you think about this topic (AI and consciousness). And the conflict between materialism and nonduality in Regards to explaining the origin of consciousness and how it works. Materialism basically says that reality is unconscious in it's "essence" .. It's made up of atoms and molecules.. And those are not what you think they are lol. They are not the phenomenon of course or those pictures that you see in science books (because the phenomenon is Consciousness =qualia lol ).. They are hidden metaphysical aspects which are the essence of reality that no one has ever seen or can ever see lol ..and they are unconscious. And SOMEHOW those unconscious elements developed consciousness lol. Of course this is absurdly funny. It's like saying I have put some rocks together.. And those rocks somehow turned into a unicorn lol. It doesn't make sense how inherently unconscious reality developed consciousness. On the other side there is a problem with artificial intelligence. I'm not aware if science created self-aware robots (robots that have perception) (i guess not) .. But if they did.. Wouldn't that be actually suggesting that this phenomenon that we call consciousness (Color sound smell taste touch thought) are actually being generated from a basic underlying "matter" that is inherently not "conscious". Or at least not in the ordinary sense of what we understand from the word consciousness (the opposite of the blankness of deep sleep ). What would creating self-aware robots mean to our understanding of consciousness?

Yes. I don't know what consciousness IS. can you enlighten me?

It is not unrealistic to imagine a world populated by machanical oganisms and robotic lifeforms. What is unrealistic, is that we anthropomorphosize the elements of technology. If we have reached an age when we attribute human virtues and characteristics to machines we have obviously forgotten and altogether dismissed any and all residual logic we have not already given up to the technological systems. Granted, the likelihood of machines dictating societies to a mass degree is not only possible but imminent. However, I find it shameful and repugnant that we waste our time mulling over whether or not non-biological entities can be examined as artificial human beings.

I don't believe its nearly that simple, and my response was Concerning the Assumption that making Assumptions is an aspect of sentience, and not simply a by-product of the human mind...

@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