Can a man-made computer become conscious?

[Someone here]

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?

[Carl-Richard]

30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

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?

A biological neuron is more complex than an electronic neuron.

[Someone here]

42 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

A biological neuron is more complex than an electronic neuron.

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. 

[Paradox]

You can skip to 31:00

This channel definitely needs more attention. 

Edited February 7, 2022 by Paradox

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Granted. Still, creating an electronic neural network that mimics the human brain is totally possible . 

Bernardo Kastrup says we can simulate intelligence (behavior), but not understanding (1st person experience of intelligence), at least with current technology. Experience seems to be intrinsically tied to biology.

2:26:35 - 2:30:00 "Life/metabolism is what dissociative processes look like."

 

 

[Gesundheit2]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

creating an electronic neural network that mimics the human brain is totally possible . 

Why reinvent the wheel? The exact same human brain/body/whatever that actually worked once, we can't make it work again.

Sometimes it's like, it was working fine just 5 minutes ago. Why did it stop working? What happened? How to bring life back into it? Nobody knows.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[Breakingthewall]

question is: what is a living organism? a stone, for example, is a set of atoms. really a stone is nothing defined, you take away half of it and it remains a stone. an organism is not a set of atoms. it is a pattern in which each atom occupies an exact place, and is constantly exchanged for another equal atom. This pattern is defined by a programming written in the genes, where the possible reactions of the organism to the external environment are indicated. a computer, given enough power, could be programmed to replicate exactly, and even more efficiently, the behavior of life, and evolve. what would be the difference with an organism?

[Mahyar]

43 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Why reinvent the wheel? The exact same human brain/body/whatever that actually worked once, we can't make it work again.

Sometimes it's like, it was working fine just 5 minutes ago. Why did it stop working? What happened? How to bring life back into it? Nobody knows.

If you don't know how to make it work, it doesn't mean it has stopped working or you have overgrown it. The first step is to figure out what that "Whatever" is in your equation. Mind/Body/Soul. Making the mistake to say it's all consciousness and all these models are bullshit, is like saying, Water and a Tree and Mountain are the same they are made of atoms. Well yeah, but if you want to generalize or reduce things just like that, then good luck with understanding the world you are living in and expanding your consciousness.

You need to know what are the origins of this trilogy. What do each of those components mean. Why Mind/Body/Soul and not Body/Soul/Mind? There is an abundance of information on internet, but also there are information that you can find outside of internet. But you can use internet as your launching point to the further your study through secondary source, of course if you are curious enough to know it deeply.

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

question is: what is a living organism? a stone, for example, is a set of atoms. really a stone is nothing defined, you take away half of it and it remains a stone. an organism is not a set of atoms. it is a pattern in which each atom occupies an exact place, and is constantly exchanged for another equal atom. This pattern is defined by a programming written in the genes, where the possible reactions of the organism to the external environment are indicated. a computer, given enough power, could be programmed to replicate exactly, and even more efficiently, the behavior of life, and evolve. what would be the difference with an organism?

You could argue that the computer in that case would literally create life. There are many traits you can use to create the category of life, but arguably the most central one is metabolism.

[Breakingthewall]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

You could argue that the computer in that case would literally create life. There are many traits you can use to create the category of life, but arguably the most central one is metabolism.

metabolism is processing matter to incorporate it into the body and continue to function. An organism is basically a programmed machine capable of extracting energy from the surrounding environment and reproducing. its programming is in the genes and these reprogram themselves according to the conditions around them, and also by a mysterious tendency to increase in complexity. An organism is nothing more than a matter processor, invisible energy patterns capable of changing shape to continue existing. any form of life is the same: a material support for the gene. 

A machine could be created with a programming capable of learning from itself in an unlimited way and that in its center was written the absolute necessity of perpetuating itself and increasing in complexity.

Edited February 7, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

A machine could be created with a programming capable of learning from itself in an unlimited way and that in its center was written the absolute necessity of perpetuating itself and increasing in complexity.

The question is really how different that would look from biology (if we're indeed aiming for an organism with metabolism, as experience seems to be tied to metabolism). For example, phospholipid membranes and water are perfect for the transfer and catalyzing of chemical reactions of organic compounds. The idea that a synthetic organism ("machine") has to be electronic and consist of cold, dead, metallic parts is a bit juvenile.

[Breakingthewall]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

The question is really how different that would look from biology

I think it would be at another level: fusion reactors, the ability to modify the atom and create matter at will... impossible to know 

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Mahyar said:

then good luck

Thanks. I appreciate it.

[Adamq8]

21 hours ago, Someone here said:

 

21 hours ago, Someone here said:

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!

Deep thought's and satisfying to read, nice ?

I wanna give a proper answer for that deep contemplation you had there, but atm i am too lazy and i have a 3 months old son at home so I cant really deeply contemplate and take my time ?

But I like your thoughts and I want to build on that when time is allowing ?

[BlueOak]

23 hours ago, LastThursday said:

I'll keep going till you get bored with me. How do you know that only biological agents possess feelings?

Because feelings are a chemical process interpreted by the brain.

[Someone here]

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bernardo Kastrup says we can simulate intelligence (behavior), but not understanding (1st person experience of intelligence), at least with current technology. Experience seems to be intrinsically tied to biology.

2:26:35 - 2:30:00 "Life/metabolism is what dissociative processes look like."

 

 

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. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Someone here

[Someone here]

18 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Why reinvent the wheel? The exact same human brain/body/whatever that actually worked once, we can't make it work again.

Sometimes it's like, it was working fine just 5 minutes ago. Why did it stop working? What happened? How to bring life back into it? Nobody knows.

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?

[Someone here]

17 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

question is: what is a living organism? a stone, for example, is a set of atoms. really a stone is nothing defined, you take away half of it and it remains a stone. an organism is not a set of atoms. it is a pattern in which each atom occupies an exact place, and is constantly exchanged for another equal atom. This pattern is defined by a programming written in the genes, where the possible reactions of the organism to the external environment are indicated. a computer, given enough power, could be programmed to replicate exactly, and even more efficiently, the behavior of life, and evolve. what would be the difference with an organism?

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.
 

[Breakingthewall]

40 minutes ago, Someone here said:

If we are talking about the unknown future, say, 300,000 years from now

rather in 200 years. until recently it was impossible for a computer, no matter how powerful, to beat a go master. recently, an artificial intelligence learned playing against itself like 30 min and won the world champion. this is nothing. with a powerful enough processor an ai would have no limit, and quantum processors are going to arrive soon it seems

[Someone here]

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.