Thread: Could a computer program have a consciousness?

Good question. I don't see why not, although it would probably create some interesting problems as far as ethics vs. power usage.

What is consciousness?

You'll never know! Mwuahahaha.

I talked about this earlier in a different thread about aliens.

How could we know the aliens had consciousness and were not just mimics of consciousness? You could of course without much effort assume other humans have consciousness as you are a human and you indeed have consciousness...However aliens have no tie to us at all nor do computers..Thus we may never know.

It only makes sense that a computer program that mimics our consciousness would have its own consciousness

Is it unethical to abuse a robot with feelings? Hah

** I'm attributing this to Asimov - but I'm not 100% sure I'm right
long time since I read any of his stuff - let me know if I'm wrong **

One of Isaac Asimov's robot stories involved the gradual transformation of a human subject to a synthetic life form

The subject was being constantly monitored and his organic parts replaced with robotic equivalents over time

A single neuron in his brain was examined
it's behaviour recorded, and how it reacted with the neurons around it
An artificial neuron was then developed, that exactly replicated the original
and swapped for the biological original

This process repeated across the entire brain, and all other parts of his body
Replacing simple organic processes and materials with robotic equivalents until the subject was entirely artificial

Consciousness and self-awareness is governed in humans by neuronal networks. It can therefore be done using artificial networks - silica, or whatever. I'm no expert on electronics, but I am a neuroscientist, and it can definitely be achieved.

Indeed. There was once a pseudoscientific myth that living things had a special property that non-living things didn't have. This was known as vitalism and was disproven. I think it's time we move past neurological vitalism and see that the mind really is made of neurons, not a soul or whatever.

how can you disprove the existence of a mythical quality?

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Consciousness and self-awareness is governed in humans by neuronal networks. It can therefore be done using artificial networks - silica, or whatever. I'm no expert on electronics, but I am a neuroscientist, and it can definitely be achieved.

Yeah, "or whatever". Good luck creating a material that can change itself like cells can.

I still hold that bits don't exist and a simulated dynamic network computed on mostly static matter is nothing like a brain at all. A brain doesn't have a CPU... because a brain doesn't compute things, it is a decentralized system of action-reaction. So long as you plan to represent neuronal activity on a miniature metal CPU die, you're not even close to artificial consciousness.

Er, of course they exist. They are switches.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Er, of course they exist. They are switches.

No, bits aren't switches. Bits are the 'information' contained within the state of binary switches.

I think you're confusing a neural network with a conventional computer

Originally Posted by Serkat

A brain doesn't have a CPU

Neither does a neural network
you may want to read up on them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

Quote from the Wikipedia entry (Emphasis mine)

An artificial neural network (ANN), often just called a "neural network" (NN), is a mathematical model or computational model based on biological neural networks. It consists of an interconnected group of artificial neurons and processes information using a connectionist approach to computation. In most cases an ANN is an adaptive system that changes its structure based on external or internal information that flows through the network during the learning phase.

Maybe I just misread stuff, but for all I know, that's exactly my problem with artificial neural networks. They are systems of mathematical functions that handle "data" like neurons, but computed on static computers.

I'm aware that the point of modeling an artificial neural network is accurately simulating the behavior of a real biological neural network, suited to the specific needs of whatever one wants to achieve with that method, thus getting away from the centralized-computing paradigm. I'm also aware that the people who engage in this kind of stuff are probably pretty good at it and that the level of efficiency reached is probably pretty high. That doesn't change the fact that it's running on the exact same metallic systems that can bring Doom 3 to my screen. It doesn't change the fact that my alleged "consciousness" is spinning at 10,000 rpm before tiny fragments of it are consecutively copied into other places where they're just states of metal, until even tinier fragments are transported to a complex tiny electronic device that takes these fragments and puts out other fragments which are then transported back to the other fragments.

Am I missing something?

My point is: For an artificial neuron to be considered a real artificial neuron, you have to be able to see it as a real material entity. You can't say "Well, this is my neuron and stuff, but if you pull the plug it's gone." That's cheating.

I always thought the best video card would be the one who creates atom like pixels. Then everything would look like in real life. :O

Cheating......

You can't map atoms. Heisenburg uncertainty principal. You can either know where it is, or what it's doing but not both, and measuring it changes it.

Originally Posted by Ynot

Cheating......

Wat

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You can't map atoms. Heisenburg uncertainty principal. You can either know where it is, or what it's doing but not both, and measuring it changes it.

He means if we can render GOOGOLS of triangles to make up models.

This is basically the Hard Problem reformulated for the sci-fi crowd, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Venomblood

Humans are simply made up of atoms, just as computer programs are made up as bits and bytes. If someone were to (in the future) make a computer program simulating atoms and physics perfectly, then made a human out of those atoms, would that person have a consciousness? Both are made up atoms that can be seen and interacted with by their respective owners. Both can think, feel, taste, smell, see, hear. What defines us humans as different from a computer program person?

According to science it should be possible yes.. thats the goal of science isn't it, to be able to figure everything out?

But that future is very very distant imo. One day we will have the power of God, thats for sure, because thats the whole point of evolution right?

I don't really understand what you're saying, Serkat. Nanotechnology can make changing artificial cells possible. Artificial doesn't mean static. Could you maybe explain your point to me in a way I can understand? Because the brain is just a machine. Sure, a complex and constantly morphing one, but artificial replication is definitely possible.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

I don't really understand what you're saying, Serkat. Nanotechnology can make changing artificial cells possible. Artificial doesn't mean static. Could you maybe explain your point to me in a way I can understand? Because the brain is just a machine. Sure, a complex and constantly morphing one, but artificial replication is definitely possible.

Yes. I wasn't really arguing against you really, I think it just wasn't very elegantly put. But for all I know right now we don't have these "real" neural network.

Only in the second step I was arguing that mathematical and behavioristic models of neural networks aren't anything like a brain if they run on something that's not itself neural in natural.

Originally Posted by Serkat

I was arguing that mathematical and behavioristic models of neural networks aren't anything like a brain if they run on something that's not itself neural in natural.

Why not? Who said there is a limit to what can be accomplished with artificial materials? Who has drawn this line between nature and manmade things? Technically, our artificial materials are a part of nature. We were created as a part of nature, and our creations must therefore also be a part of nature.

Why does consciousness have to be biological? I understand what you're saying, but does an artificial brain really have to mirror the biological brain completely for it to be conscious?