Can a man-made computer become conscious?

[Baum]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

If computers and robotics can reach to this level then it surely can reach the state of consciousness or self-awareness.

• how can you conclude from surgical robots  self awareness?

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Baum said:

• how can you conclude from surgical robots  self awareness?

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.
 

[Ramu]

Pure mental horseshit

[Baum]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

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.
 

it sounds like you copied it from somewhere without understanding it.

it also doesn't actually answer my question, are you still ok?

[Someone here]

1 minute ago, Ramu said:

Pure mental horseshit

Lol. Relax .

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Baum said:

it sounds like you copied it from somewhere without understanding it.

it also doesn't actually answer my question, are you still ok?

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 ?

 

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

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. 

I think the argument is that 1st person experience (personalized bubbles of consciousness) merely arose at one stage of natural evolution, not as a product of information processing, but either as a product of selection or just sheer happenstance. It's another way of saying that we only know about lifeforms such as ours that have a subjective experience. Even if the computer evolved through natural selection, it's not necessarily a given that it too would have internal experience (because again, the possibility of happenstance).

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

I think the argument is that 1st person experience (personalized bubbles of consciousness) merely arose at one stage of natural evolution, not as a product of information processing, but either as a product of selection or just sheer happenstance. It's another way of saying that we only know about lifeforms such as ours that have a subjective experience. Even if the computer evolved through natural selection, it's not necessarily a given that it too would have internal experience (because again, the possibility of happenstance).

 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.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Baum said:

@Someone here  it seems like some authority you blindly trust confused your sense making. please take better care of yourself

Ok thank You. 

 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Someone here

[Leo Gura]

You are the only conscious thing in existence.

Stop imagining others.

It's simple: No one is conscious but you.

The end.

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You are the only conscious thing in existence.

Stop imagining others.

It's simple: No one is conscious but you.

The end.

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

 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

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

It's not an opinion. You are God. Stop imagining shit and wake up.

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not an opinion. You are God. Stop imagining shit and wake up.

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 ?

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Maybe there's no ending to the process of waking up

The ending is when you realize you're absolutely alone.

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The ending is when you realize you're absolutely alone.

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.

 

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Someone here said:

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.

Awakening is the realization that you are absolutely alone.

You have no idea what's possible. Stop acting dense.

[Someone here]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Awakening is the realization that you are absolutely alone.

You have no idea what's possible. Stop acting dense.

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).

[Leo Gura]

58 minutes ago, Someone here said:

OK so now who's alone ?me or you ?

I am you.

Quote

It is well known in philosophy that this belief is logically unassailable.

It's not a belief. It's absolutely true. Absolute truth cannot be assailed.

[Matthew85]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are the only conscious thing in existence.

Stop imagining others.

It's simple: No one is conscious but you.

The end.

 @Leo Gura During some of my oneness experiences I became other people and they became me. I perceived their unique expressions were also God. I perceived them to be conscious as well. This could simply be because I was imagining this. But, if I as God am infinite then I would have the ability to imagine or create other conscious beings right? In my experience in exploring the nature of God you run into paradoxes. Like how could something be one and an infinite many simultaneously? Well, if God is infinite, that means it can literally create anything. So, if I as God enjoy the idea that you Leo, are having your own conscious experience of exploring the universe while at the same time also being me, I could create that.

[Matthew85]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The ending is when you realize you're absolutely alone.

@Leo Gura Could you expand on this? In my most awakened states the concept of alone didn't exist for me. 

[Leo Gura]

14 minutes ago, Matthew85 said:

 @Leo Gura During some of my oneness experiences I became other people and they became me. I perceived their unique expressions were also God. I perceived them to be conscious as well.

Awaken deeper.

14 minutes ago, Matthew85 said:

This could simply be because I was imagining this.

Exactly.

14 minutes ago, Matthew85 said:

But, if I as God am infinite then I would have the ability to imagine or create other conscious beings right?

Yup, but notice you are creating them.

14 minutes ago, Matthew85 said:

In my experience in exploring the nature of God you run into paradoxes. Like how could something be one and an infinite many simultaneously? Well, if God is infinite, that means it can literally create anything. So, if I as God enjoy the idea that you Leo, are having your own conscious experience of exploring the universe while at the same time also being me, I could create that.

Yes

But you are not yet conscious that you created me. You are under the illusion that something exists outside your consciousness.

9 minutes ago, Matthew85 said:

@Leo Gura Could you expand on this? In my most awakened states the concept of alone didn't exist for me. 

What we're talking about here is way beyond concepts.

Your consciousness is all there is. There are no conscious beings outside you. You are the only one.