Thread: Could a computer program have a consciousness?

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?

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

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?

I meant to say "neural in nature", i.e. "nature" not referring to the actual chemical quality of the material, but the macroscopic organization of the system's parts. So, artificial materials yes, but organized in a way other than RAM+lots of conductors+CPU, running a neural simulation software.

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?

I had this exact same idea recently. And it is pretty cool: It is hard to formulate a reason why this simulation would not have a concious. If the simulation of atoms (and subatomics ect) is indeed perfect, and the human is a perfect replica as well (you would probably need to let evolution repeat within the simulation, or maybe you could just create in the virtual world a setting capable of letting a human get born by using someone's DNA-code). Grated this (hypothetical) perfection, there is no real difference, thus there will probably be as much concious in the simulation as there is here.

The fragmented time-passing of the simulation (actually fragmented creation of the simulation, since a computer is not capable of calculating everything at the same exact time) versus the (perhaps seemingly) fluent time-passing on our reality maybe be called a difference, but it would be hard to point out how exactly this changes things. From inside the simulation there is no real difference.

You could undoubtfully simulate a couple of neurons to let an robot-like creature get along in a virtual world, so you could -given enough processing power- simulate billions of neurons that all also work the same as in reality.

All this together makes it a greatly interesting though-experiment. It probably isn't going to overturn the bio-chauvinists, nor the stubborn dualists (people that believe thoughts/mind isn't mere substance, or doesn't originate from mere substance, but something non-material as well (note: something either completely undefined or completely unscientific)). However, it does shed an interesting light on the whole conciousness-discussion, if you ask me.