Can a man-made computer become conscious?

[Carl-Richard]

46 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Furthermore how do you explain th brain's more than obvious correlation with consciousness? If your brain gets damaged there will be damage in your consciousness accordingly.

Why does psychedelics and meditation lead to a decrease in brain activity but a widening of consciousness? Why do some types of brain damage lead to an increase in functioning? (e.g. Acquired savant syndrome).

[Adamq8]

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

Those things depend on consciousness and consciousness depends on them. Its a strangeloop.

I know a man-made computer can become conscious. Human life is not so complex as people believe. People are egotistical and ignorant. If you ever believe that there is no higher intelligence than human life, then you are gravely mistaken. Just like humans can dissect, understand, and control every aspect of an insect or simple animal, such as a dog, all that can be done to humans.

There is no reason to disbelieve humans cannot be dissected, controlled completely, replicated, and that a "soul" can become downloaded onto a computer disk. There is nothing sacred about a human's life. It can be copied or destroyed freely. There is nothing essential or special about any particular human being. You can call this "dehumanizing", but, what again is human anyway? What does it mean to be human?

My answer is, not much. It means very little to be human. I believe there are much, much higher forms of existence than human life. Not just "aliens", but, I believe some men and women can transcend human nature, and become godlike. There are no limits in nature, no limits anywhere.

All is possible.

Come on dude you are speaking such nonsense with posts like this, " I know man - made computers can become conscious " no you don't have a clue about that, you are avoiding a BIG PROBLEM in neuro science, how is it that neurons make you taste chocolate or smell a rose? They have not one iota of a clue, you are buying a thought story which has no basis in reality , the typical " give us more time and we will solve everything" is a typical cop out coming from neuroscientist and what not just to stay floating above the water.

Firstly we have not figured out dogs or how they work either, we can't create a alive dog and then you say that us humans are not complex when scientist's says that the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe.

I am seeing behind the arguments or points that you are trying to get across, a big nihilistic mindset which you have had problems with in the past.

" humans are not that complex etc"

That is such a nihilistic statement.

You somehow believe that these scientist with their confident smug on their faces trying to explain away problems like it's nothing, that is the essence of scientism, which is the worst sort of religion that there can possibly be.

Do you understand that there is this HARD PROBLEM OF CONCIOUSNESS, we dont even know why or how we have this experiences or how matter which is unconcious can even in theory give rise to the colourful world that you experience, to then go on and make the leap to speak about concious computers etc when we have no clue about conciousness.

BUT!

There is a possibility PERHAPS of concious computers, but it feels like a long shot, in the 1960's there were also the confidence of concious computers but it was no way near succeeding in that endevour. 

Time will tell ofcourse of how that will play out, but life is precious my man i promise you, you are so unique that no one is ever gonna be like you, embrace life with all its suffering and joyous experiences brother.

 

 

[Baum]

6 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

Come on dude you are speaking such nonsense with posts like this, " I know man - made computers can become conscious " no you don't have a clue about that, you are avoiding a BIG PROBLEM in neuro science, how is it that neurons make you taste chocolate or smell a rose? They have not one iota of a clue, you are buying a thought story which has no basis in reality , the typical " give us more time and we will solve everything" is a typical cop out coming from neuroscientist and what not just to stay floating above the water.

Firstly we have not figured out dogs or how they work either, we can't create a alive dog and then you say that us humans are not complex when scientist's says that the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe.

I am seeing behind the arguments or points that you are trying to get across, a big nihilistic mindset which you have had problems with in the past.

" humans are not that complex etc"

That is such a nihilistic statement.

You somehow believe that these scientist with their confident smug on their faces trying to explain away problems like it's nothing, that is the essence of scientism, which is the worst sort of religion that there can possibly be.

Do you understand that there is this HARD PROBLEM OF CONCIOUSNESS, we dont even know why or how we have this experiences or how matter which is unconcious can even in theory give rise to the colourful world that you experience, to then go on and make the leap to speak about concious computers etc when we have no clue about conciousness.

BUT!

There is a possibility PERHAPS of concious computers, but it feels like a long shot, in the 1960's there were also the confidence of concious computers but it was no way near succeeding in that endevour. 

Time will tell ofcourse of how that will play out, but life is precious my man i promise you, you are so unique that no one is ever gonna be like you, embrace life with all its suffering and joyous experiences brother.

 

 

Thank you.

I was given points for "trolling" by the moderator Carl, for pointing out the possible source of these opinions, when i was just trying to help.

good to see that someone hasn't lost his mind.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Baum

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Baum said:

Thank you.

I was given points for "trolling" by the moderator Carl, for pointing out the possible source of these opinions, when i was just trying to help.

good to see that someone hasn't lost his mind.

And I'm glad the moderator team agrees with my decision . Please don't derail the topic.

[Someone here]

11 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

Come on dude you are speaking such nonsense with posts like this, " I know man - made computers can become conscious " no you don't have a clue about that, you are avoiding a BIG PROBLEM in neuro science, how is it that neurons make you taste chocolate or smell a rose? They have not one iota of a clue, you are buying a thought story which has no basis in reality , the typical " give us more time and we will solve everything" is a typical cop out coming from neuroscientist and what not just to stay floating above the water.

Firstly we have not figured out dogs or how they work either, we can't create a alive dog and then you say that us humans are not complex when scientist's says that the human brain is the most complex object in the known universe.

I am seeing behind the arguments or points that you are trying to get across, a big nihilistic mindset which you have had problems with in the past.

" humans are not that complex etc"

That is such a nihilistic statement.

You somehow believe that these scientist with their confident smug on their faces trying to explain away problems like it's nothing, that is the essence of scientism, which is the worst sort of religion that there can possibly be.

Do you understand that there is this HARD PROBLEM OF CONCIOUSNESS, we dont even know why or how we have this experiences or how matter which is unconcious can even in theory give rise to the colourful world that you experience, to then go on and make the leap to speak about concious computers etc when we have no clue about conciousness.

BUT!

There is a possibility PERHAPS of concious computers, but it feels like a long shot, in the 1960's there were also the confidence of concious computers but it was no way near succeeding in that endevour. 

Time will tell ofcourse of how that will play out, but life is precious my man i promise you, you are so unique that no one is ever gonna be like you, embrace life with all its suffering and joyous experiences brother.

 

 

I cannot see why a machine could not transfer its unit of specifically unitary memories and specifically unitary predispositions to other machines which because they occupy diiferent spaces or times are regarded as separate body- analogues. Over all I guess that the intuitive objection to machine self consciousness is that machines are deemed incapable of emotions. True, it is unlikely that machines will ever function by the use of chemical messengers(which processes are what emotions are), but the analogue for machine 'emotions' is the installation of self preservation devices together with a predilection for computing the interests of others.

[Someone here]

22 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why does psychedelics and meditation lead to a decrease in brain activity but a widening of consciousness? Why do some types of brain damage lead to an increase in functioning? (e.g. Acquired savant syndrome).

I don't know. 

[Someone here]

@Carl-Richard @Adamq8

I do consider that computers will have consciousness although in a distant future. Consciousness is, as I see it, just an (indeed extremely complex) composition of neuronal impulses, which are electrical signals. I think that, how was already mentioned, with enough power and the right build a computer could mimic the human mind and develop consciousness.

 

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

@Carl-Richard @Adamq8

I do consider that computers will have consciousness although in a distant future. Consciousness is, as I see it, just an (indeed extremely complex) composition of neuronal impulses, which are electrical signals. I think that, how was already mentioned, with enough power and the right build a computer could mimic the human mind and develop consciousness.

If you build that computer and then damage some of its components, will it have an increase or decrease in consciousness?

[Adamq8]

14 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Carl-Richard @Adamq8

I do consider that computers will have consciousness although in a distant future. Consciousness is, as I see it, just an (indeed extremely complex) composition of neuronal impulses, which are electrical signals. I think that, how was already mentioned, with enough power and the right build a computer could mimic the human mind and develop consciousness.

 

Did you not just say that humans aren't that complex and now conciousness is extremely complex?

How is consciousness developed?

I agree that the mind can evolve or it can develop, but an infant still have experiences and it dreams in the womb apparently, which I dont know how they found that out but, if the case is that, conciousness is a " by product" of the brain, I wonder at what precise moment does it gets turned on?

Are not flies also concious of its surroundings?

How can a simple fly be aware of its surroundings?

Even brain less creatures exhibit intelligent behaviour 

Everything seemingly seem to be concious in one way or another, we are bathing in an concious ocean of infinite intelligence which gives the forms it creates life, it breathes the  holy spirit into everything. 

 

[Someone here]

33 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you build that computer and then damage some of its components, will it have an increase or decrease in consciousness?

Decrease .

 

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why does psychedelics and meditation lead to a decrease in brain activity but a widening of consciousness?

Psychedelics increase brain activity.

[Someone here]

18 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

Did you not just say that humans aren't that complex and now conciousness is extremely complex?

How is consciousness developed?

I agree that the mind can evolve or it can develop, but an infant still have experiences and it dreams in the womb apparently, which I dont know how they found that out but, if the case is that, conciousness is a " by product" of the brain, I wonder at what precise moment does it gets turned on?

Are not flies also concious of its surroundings?

How can a simple fly be aware of its surroundings?

Even brain less creatures exhibit intelligent behaviour 

Everything seemingly seem to be concious in one way or another, we are bathing in an concious ocean of infinite intelligence which gives the forms it creates life, it breathes the  holy spirit into everything. 

 

This is the "Duck Test". Or if you prefer the "Turing Test". 

If the robot were to walk and talk like it had consciousness and self awareness, then for all intents and purposes it has consciousness and self awareness. It's a philosophical question whether it has a conscious inner life, not a practical one.

Actually, you are applying the Duck Test whenever you interact with people. You are mapping their speech and movements and form to yours and concluding that they too are experiencing what you are experiencing, a.k.a. consciousness. But, you will never know.

Even if you magically expanded the reach of your consciousness to enter the "mind" of another person, that still wouldn't answer the question. Instead you would be some sort of hybrid consciousness, neither the original you or the original them.

This is akin to the measurement problem in quantum physics. You can't measure the state of a system without disturbing the system. More accurately, whenever you measure a system, you are merging with it, to create a hybrid system. You can't disentangle the observer from the observed.

[Baum]

@Someone here  Hey,

you are mistaking computation for self/awareness.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Baum

[Someone here]

@Adamq8 @Carl-Richard Materialism or otherwise known as naive realism is a metaphysical philosophy known as substance-dualism. That reality is split into two different substance. One is the appearances or phenomenon or consciousness or qualia (this stuff right here)..which is a second order emergence from the essence which is matter. That matter has no phenomenonolgical qualities. It's not conscious yet it gives arise to consciousness. 

Do you guys agree with this description ?

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Baum said:

@Someone here  Hey,

you are mistaking computation for self/awareness.

How so? Could you elaborate? 

[Baum]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

How so? Could you elaborate? 

take a look at what self awareness is and what it requires.

you make the mistake that it needs complexity and therefore a complex enough machine could achieve that. the problem with that is that self awareness doesn't require any form of intelligence at all, you could be " as dumb" as a plant ( even though plants arent dumb) and be self aware.

all a robot does is calculate under mathematical structures, nothing more, that doesn't need self/awareness, self awareness is outside of that.

you would benefit from understanding more how programs function.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Baum

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Psychedelics increase brain activity.

Wrong. There is an increased functional connectivity between some brain areas (communication), but they don't increase blood flow to any of those areas (there is only a decrease). Blood flow is one of the main ways of measuring brain activity, because it's an indicator of increased glucose metabolism and energy expenditure.

[Carl-Richard]

39 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Adamq8 @Carl-Richard Materialism or otherwise known as naive realism is a metaphysical philosophy known as substance-dualism. That reality is split into two different substance. One is the appearances or phenomenon or consciousness or qualia (this stuff right here)..which is a second order emergence from the essence which is matter.

I'm not a philosopher, and all these terms have sub-categories which complicates things and which I can't recite from the top of my head, but I would still make a small correction: 

You did explain substance dualism correctly, but materialism is a monism which says everything is made out of matter, and that mind is an emergent property of matter (brains). It's emergent in the sense that a substance called matter somehow produces a different type of substance called mind. Substance dualism merely poses that matter and mind are produced separately and have no causal correlation, i.e. brains don't have anything to do with mind (which is in some ways less ridiculous than materialism).

 

39 minutes ago, Someone here said:

That matter has no phenomenonolgical qualities. It's not conscious yet it gives arise to consciousness. 

Yep, that's materialism.

[Ramu]

@Adamq8 @Someone here Consciousness doesn't arise from matter.  Matter arises out of Consciousness..i.e.  You.  Not you, but YOU.  Get it?

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, Baum said:

take a look at what self awareness is and what it requires.

I would use the term "self-awareness" to refer to the awareness of the small self and "awareness" to be awareness of the big Self.

Self-awareness or meta-awareness is the ability to re-represent internal representations (perceptions), which means to think about something that is not currently in your experience. A more complex form of meta-awareness is the ability to make higher-order symbolic representations (classes like "cat" or "dog" or "human") out of these re-representations, which you can weave into abstract narratives, i.e. a self-story (e.g. "I am a human").

Higher-order symbolic meta-awareness is what humans have (we make stories about ourselves and the environment), some animals probably have a lower form of meta-awareness (they can think about past experiences), and some probably don't re-represent perceptions at all.