Can a man-made computer become conscious?

[Someone here]

12 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@Someone here

Consciousness is neither a byproduct nor a facet, consciousness is conscious of these thoughts in direct experience… isn’t it so? 
 

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]

@Someone here

Even sentience is going to far.

[wildflower]

Ignore most of the robotic fools who espouse the same rehearsed crap they inherited from Leo.

 

What you are asking is, can a computer become self referential, and assume a pseudo independent identity, then yes, it's inevitable. The human biology is too constraint and selfish, AI/computers will be more selfless, which is ultimately the universe goal

 

Dont conflate conciousness with self referencing seperation

Edited February 3, 2022 by wildflower

[Ramu]

@Someone here it seems like you have no idea what consciousness is.  Watch Leo's videos.

[Someone here]

20 hours ago, wildflower said:

Ignore most of the robotic fools who espouse the same rehearsed crap they inherited from Leo.

 

What you are asking is, can a computer become self referential, and assume a pseudo independent identity, then yes, it's inevitable. The human biology is too constraint and selfish, AI/computers will be more selfless, which is ultimately the universe goal

 

Dont conflate conciousness with self referencing seperation

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. 

[Someone here]

19 hours ago, Ramu said:

@Someone here it seems like you have no idea what consciousness is.  Watch Leo's videos.

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

[Someone here]

@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? 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Someone here

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

@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. 

There isn’t AI and consciousness, just infinite consciousness. There is not infinite consciousness and this other thing… AI. 

Quote

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. 

Materialism doesn’t ‘say’ anything. It’s a belief in separate material things, and it is only a belief. There is only to notice you are saying this, and it is the expression of a belief. This can be interpreted as not a pointing to truth, but a personal negation. Up to you to ‘catch’ / notice, that projection or not. 

Quote

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? 

Are you aware? Yes. 
Are you aware that you are aware? Yes. 
Can you name something else (such as a self-aware robot) which is aware? No. 

The foundational belief of the consideration as to wether a robot can have perception, is that there is a separate self, a “you”, which has perception. 

There is no actuality to “understanding of consciousness”. There is only the belief in a separate self, as the understander.

’For those with two good ears’…. 

Thought.
Perception. 
Sensation.

And conjecture at every turn. 

[BlueOak]

On 2/2/2022 at 8:16 AM, Someone here said:

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.

1, What I said was, if it were designed as a humanoid, specifically a humanoid mind, it would be more likely, because it would be copying what already exists. Not who or what created it. While your point is an interesting line of thinking it ultimately ends up deadlocked. 

1.A) We could say conscious things creating something are more likely to create consciousness rather than random chance. If random chance were capable of creating more life, then we'd find it on more planets or just in more of our own creations. Even with many people specifically working on trying to create AI for example its not happened, so that's far from completely random chance either, even if it contains a lot of unknown variables and unknown questions being answered right now.

1.B) The counter argument is made in the same statement. Many people are trying deliberately to create consciousness and it hasn't happened yet. Also the universe is to our best understanding infinite, so there is a lot of random chance going on, compared to our small effort here on earth, and its already happened once in us. Neither of these points were what I was talking about but its an interesting sidetrack.

2, I can't compare a man working as a driver to a washing machine or toaster. We could discuss everything you've omitted that's present in the man and not present in the toaster, but honestly it would be an absurd premise to start with. Based on our understanding, for consciousness to be present, or in focus, there has to be a certain amount of synaptic activity that is simply not present in a toaster for example. So again I will completely disagree here and leave it at that.

3, When you leave your body there is. That answers it, when you do or become the room etc, you won't have that question anymore. I agree there is no other way I found of answering it, apart from maybe bliss states or the white light reality state but that is more an experiential state.

On spirits, only third eye work gives you that, again you can dismiss and we'll disagree about it because you've not had those experiences. I don't claim to be an expert, only that i've experienced it multiple times so for me its a confirmed fact of my life.

Edited February 4, 2022 by BlueOak

[Breakingthewall]

All forms of life have a common characteristic: they want to live. one could really say that there is only one form of life: the gene. the gene wants to endure, dramatically. his will is life. can a machine embody this will, which is life? not for now. not even close. in the future, who knows, but there would have to be a radical change. It would have to live

[BlueOak]

8 hours ago, Someone here said:

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 agree, and I was going to mention this in my post. Even you, someone like me who hates this, were comparing a man being used as a tool for a task to a machine. That is how far as a society we've fallen, and that might sound dramatic but I feel that way. People have been trained to work as machines so much so that we are now having multiple discussions on many platforms on how machines will be replacing man in many industries.

That part of this conversation highlights the madness, that almost everyone I see speak on this topic has. So while my observation may sound harsh, I want to thank you for making the point, because that reasoning is in everyone. 

[Someone here]

14 hours ago, Nahm said:

There isn’t AI and consciousness, just infinite consciousness. There is not infinite consciousness and this other thing… AI. 

Then I would say AI is a part of infinite consciousness, Not an other to it. 

14 hours ago, Nahm said:

Materialism doesn’t ‘say’ anything. It’s a belief in separate material things, and it is only a belief. There is only to notice you are saying this, and it is the expression of a belief. This can be interpreted as not a pointing to truth, but a personal negation. Up to you to ‘catch’ / notice, that projection or not. 

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.

  

14 hours ago, Nahm said:

you aware? Yes. 
Are you aware that you are aware? Yes. 
Can you name something else (such as a self-aware robot) which is aware? No. 

The foundational belief of the consideration as to wether a robot can have perception, is that there is a separate self, a “you”, which has perception. 

There is no actuality to “understanding of consciousness”. There is only the belief in a separate self, as the understander.

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.

[Someone here]

9 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I agree, and I was going to mention this in my post. Even you, someone like me who hates this, were comparing a man being used as a tool for a task to a machine. That is how far as a society we've fallen, and that might sound dramatic but I feel that way. People have been trained to work as machines so much so that we are now having multiple discussions on many platforms on how machines will be replacing man in many industries.

That part of this conversation highlights the madness, that almost everyone I see speak on this topic has. So while my observation may sound harsh, I want to thank you for making the point, because that reasoning is in everyone. 

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.

[Someone here]

9 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

All forms of life have a common characteristic: they want to live. one could really say that there is only one form of life: the gene. the gene wants to endure, dramatically. his will is life. can a machine embody this will, which is life? not for now. not even close. in the future, who knows, but there would have to be a radical change. It would have to live

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.

[Nahm]

@Someone here

Check out The Nature of Consciousness by Rupert Spira. 

[Mahyar]

On 31/01/2022 at 8:38 PM, Someone here said:

Do you think a man-made computer could ever become conscious? Can it have a soul? Why or why not?

, I think consciousness is a faculty of the soul and I think the soul was placed by some higher power (God if you please) and regardless of what technology we produce I don't think we can get to the point where we can create a soul or consciousness. I do however I think there is a point we could get to that is a exceptional simultion of consciousness.

For example, If any of you have ever tried those new 20 questions games. Those things are scary and it is aparantly thinking and reading your mind. I do not know how it does it but it's pretty convincing. Just to note It asks you 20 questions and then it tels you what you're thinking of, it guessed spider monkey..not just monkey, spider monkey!! It's unreal

 

Remember, everything is possible. Watch How openmindedness works by @Leo Gura. You are consciousness, you are God, You are infinite. But the trick is that you need to understand how Finite operates within Infinity. You need to become more and more conscious of yourself and what you are able to do and to create.

Check these key Words on internet: 

• Servitor
• Psychic entity
• Casting soul
• Egregore

Finally, a computer cannot be conscious if it doesn't have a soul. Also, you need to know that there are different levels of consciousness. In a sense, everything is conscious. But I guess by using the word "Conscious" you are implicitly referring to "Self-conscious". That, I don't think is possible. But again, We don't know anything. So …

[Ramu]

@Someone here it's what you Are

[Someone here]

2 hours ago, Mahyar said:

Remember, everything is possible. Watch How openmindedness works by @Leo Gura. You are consciousness, you are God, You are infinite. But the trick is that you need to understand how Finite operates within Infinity. You need to become more and more conscious of yourself and what you are able to do and to create.

Check these key Words on internet: 

• Servitor
• Psychic entity
• Casting soul
• Egregore

Finally, a computer cannot be conscious if it doesn't have a soul. Also, you need to know that there are different levels of consciousness. In a sense, everything is conscious. But I guess by using the word "Conscious" you are implicitly referring to "Self-conscious". That, I don't think is possible. But again, We don't know anything. So …

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.

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Nahm said:

@Someone here

Check out The Nature of Consciousness by Rupert Spira. 

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

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Ramu said:

@Someone here it's what you Are

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