• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
    Results 76 to 100 of 166
    1. #76
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy View Post
      Well that answers my question. You aren't using the actual scientific definition of linearity. In the realm of mathematics and physical systems, that which is nonlinear is not beyond causality at all. Its outcomes can be complex enough as to not be predictable, but does that not mean it is beyond causality. Causality says, basically, that every cause has an effect. With a complex enough system, the effect may not be predictable, but it still has a cause. When it comes to math and physics, all linear and nonlinear systems are subject to causality.
      I understand this, but there are still limitations. This is because causality really only exists in perception. What caused the Universe, and/or what caused the big bang? I hope you see that causality does not encompass all possibilities. It only exists within an arbitrary selection of perception (using imaginary start/stop points), which is sometimes blind to the prevailing conditions. The conditions are neither causes nor effects; this can be related to what is called "quantum potentiality".

      Going back to what I said, consciousness is not within the confines of the physical dimensions, so physical models can't really be used as an argument against it. Because the prevailing patterns of consciousness are of non-linear complexity, they cannot be defined or logically comprehended, therefore cannot be programmed in a sort of sequence.

    2. #77
      Member Inside This Fantasy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Posts
      66
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      I understand this, but there are still limitations. This is because causality really only exists in perception. What caused the Universe, and/or what caused the big bang? I hope you see that causality does not encompass all possibilities. It only exists within an arbitrary selection of perception (using imaginary start/stop points), which is sometimes blind to the prevailing conditions. The conditions are neither causes nor effects; this can be related to what is called "quantum potentiality".

      Going back to what I said, consciousness is not within the confines of the physical dimensions, so physical models can't really be used as an argument against it. Because the prevailing patterns of consciousness are of non-linear complexity, they cannot be defined or logically comprehended, therefore cannot be programmed in a sort of sequence.
      Alright, I understand more where you are coming from now. I do agree with you up to a point. I think the only difference between our points of view is that I do believe that conciousness is within the confines of the physical dimensions. I see conciousness as coming out of the immense complexity of the neural network. The best way to sum up my view is to re-quote you, with my own addition in bold.

      Because the prevailing patterns of consciousness are of non-linear complexity, they cannot be defined or logically comprehended, therefore cannot be programmed in a sort of sequence, yet
      To address the original question, I do think eventually we will be able to "program" a real consciousness. The idea of "simple programs" is what leads me to believe we will in fact be able to create something complex enough to have free will. If we do, I will most certainly consider it to be living.

      I've linked this a couple of times in other threads, but I guess it can't hurt to link it again. It explains what a simple program is.

      Simple programs

    3. #78
      Banned
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Big Village, North America
      Posts
      1,953
      Likes
      87
      Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'.

    4. #79
      Member Inside This Fantasy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Posts
      66
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by grasshoppa View Post
      Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'.
      I would say that you are misunderstanding consciousness itself by saying it is anything more than the sum of its parts (the neural network). Unfortunately, the question will never be answered in favor of your argument. Either AI will be created, in which case you will have been wrong, or it won't be, in which case people will keep saying that we just can't make it yet. I personally think it will be created. I guess we will just have to wait and see.
      Last edited by Inside This Fantasy; 03-20-2009 at 12:59 AM.

    5. #80
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy View Post
      To address the original question, I do think eventually we will be able to "program" a real consciousness. The idea of "simple programs" is what leads me to believe we will in fact be able to create something complex enough to have free will. If we do, I will most certainly consider it to be living.

      I've linked this a couple of times in other threads, but I guess it can't hurt to link it again. It explains what a simple program is.

      Simple programs
      There is still limitation because it is a matter of paradigm. From my understanding, you cannot process what has no actual process, and so one cannot simplify what is already totally simple.

      Otherwise, how can you program the infinite? Is the notion of free-will within causality? Because neither of these are within objectivity.

    6. #81
      Member Bonsay's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Location
      In a pot.
      Posts
      2,706
      Likes
      60
      Quote Originally Posted by grasshoppa View Post
      Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'.
      Since when have unsubstantiated beliefs been more rational than those based on scientific observation. Instead of criticizing something by saying it's delusional, you should tell us why the opposite is true. Obviously something non-delusional like god particles looking for humans to give them consciousness, making them an exception to everything else in the universe. Why should humans be an exception?
      C:\Documents and Settings\Akul\My Documents\My Pictures\Sig.gif

    7. #82
      Banned
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Big Village, North America
      Posts
      1,953
      Likes
      87
      I personally think that we are more than our chemical configuration. That's all I can say in my defense.

    8. #83
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by grasshoppa View Post
      I personally think that we are more than our chemical configuration. That's all I can say in my defense.
      Obviously we are.

      Otherwise we have simply made a statement based off an appearance.


      "Buildings have walls, man builds them" Well, so what?

    9. #84
      Member Bonsay's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Location
      In a pot.
      Posts
      2,706
      Likes
      60
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      Obviously we are.

      Otherwise we have simply made a statement based off an appearance.


      "Buildings have walls, man builds them" Well, so what?
      Well, so what, so what? Nobody said that an observation has to satisfy yours or anybody else's cognitive needs. A house has walls... If you are compelled to say "so what" then that can only be your problem. And besides, saying that we are more than chemical configurations is also a statement based off an appearance. Why isn't this a "So what?" statement as well?
      C:\Documents and Settings\Akul\My Documents\My Pictures\Sig.gif

    10. #85
      Member Inside This Fantasy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Posts
      66
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      Obviously we are.

      Otherwise we have simply made a statement based off an appearance.


      "Buildings have walls, man builds them" Well, so what?
      Sitting back and saying "so what?" is such a boring way to live life. Why just believe something is one way when you could actually go and try to figure out what it is?

    11. #86
      Member Photolysis's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,270
      Likes
      316
      I personally think that we are more than our chemical configuration. That's all I can say in my defense.
      Except you've just used your opinionated, unsubstantiated beliefs to criticise people who believe there is nothing extra to consciousness as "deluded", to declare AI as "impossible", as well as arrogantly claim you understand consciousness (since you claim others misunderstand it).

      You can't defend that.
      Last edited by Photolysis; 03-25-2009 at 05:06 PM.

    12. #87
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by Bonsay View Post
      Well, so what, so what? Nobody said that an observation has to satisfy yours or anybody else's cognitive needs. A house has walls... If you are compelled to say "so what" then that can only be your problem. And besides, saying that we are more than chemical configurations is also a statement based off an appearance. Why isn't this a "So what?" statement as well?
      Quote Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy View Post
      Sitting back and saying "so what?" is such a boring way to live life. Why just believe something is one way when you could actually go and try to figure out what it is?
      Ok let me make a better, clearer analogy.

      Person A - Chairs are meaningless. Because they are merely made of wood.


      Person B - Made of wood? In most situations yes, but what's your point? "So what" if they are merely made of wood?

      The same thing goes for human beings, and in fact, all existence. It is all "energy", "chemicals", etc. So what? True meaning does not become destroyed from this appearance, that would be a distraction. This does not reduce meaning unless the context for meaning is strictly materialistic, and thus, narrow to begin with.


      Quote Originally Posted by Photolysis View Post
      Except you've just used your opinionated, unsubstantiated beliefs to criticise people who believe there is nothing extra to consciousness as "deluded", to declare AI as "impossible", as well as arrogantly claim you understand consciousness (since you claim others misunderstand it).

      You can't defend that.
      There is also arrogance in the human intellect itself, perhaps that thinks it can possibly program a human being through "AI" to great extents. I think it is naive. AI robots will never have consciousness.
      Last edited by really; 03-26-2009 at 08:09 AM.

    13. #88
      Member Inside This Fantasy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Posts
      66
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      There is also arrogance in the human intellect itself, perhaps that thinks it can possibly program a human being through "AI" to great extents. I think it is naive.
      How is it arrogant or naive to think that it could be possible to one day understand something? It would only be arrogant or naive to say for a fact that it will or will not ever happen. In your case, you are saying we can not ever under any circumstances understand or duplicate the human consciousness. That says to me that you feel like you know the secret to consciousness, and that the secret is unknowable. In actuality, no one knows, so you can't say someone is naive for attempting to figure it out. You are the naive one for deciding its impossible without any real reason.

    14. #89
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy View Post
      How is it arrogant or naive to think that it could be possible to one day understand something? It would only be arrogant or naive to say for a fact that it will or will not ever happen. In your case, you are saying we can not ever under any circumstances understand or duplicate the human consciousness. That says to me that you feel like you know the secret to consciousness, and that the secret is unknowable. In actuality, no one knows, so you can't say someone is naive for attempting to figure it out. You are the naive one for deciding its impossible without any real reason.
      I have provided reasons, actually. It comes from recognition of the actual meanings/contexts involved. Just because your television can produce the illusory color of white with three darker colors, doesn't mean you can re-produce white with those three colors in the medium of paint.

      Similarly, we cannot program an illogical, natural, organic being with some limited and self-created system of logic.

    15. #90
      Member Inside This Fantasy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Posts
      66
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      I have provided reasons, actually. It comes from recognition of the actual meanings/contexts involved. Just because your television can produce the illusory color of white with three darker colors, doesn't mean you can re-produce white with those three colors in the medium of paint.

      Similarly, we cannot program an illogical, natural, organic being with some limited and self-created system of logic.
      First of all, that is a pretty terrible analogy. Of course mixing paint won't have the same effect as mixing wavelengths of light. In TV, if you want a color the TV emits that color. It emits red if you want red, it emits blue if you want blue, and if you want white it emits every color together. Every wavelength of light combined creates white. In paint, if you want a color, the paint absorbs every color except the one you want. If you want red, your paint absorbs everything but red and reflects red. If you want blue, it absorbs everything but blue and reflects blue. If you mix together every color of paint, your paint is then absorbing every color and you won't have anything but black. So not only are you comparing apples to oranges, I don't even see how that has anything to do with the argument.

      Second, you don't see how it is possible to create consciousness, therefore you are saying definitively that it is impossible. That is extremely closed minded. People 10,000 years ago didn't have access to enough information to even fathom how it could be possible to create something like the internet. If you tried to tell them what an electron was they would probably laugh and walk away. It seemed reasonable to them because how could something like that exist? However, you are just perpetuating that instead of learning from their mistakes. Just because you don't see how it could be possible doesn't mean it never will be. By saying, without a doubt, that something can never possibly happen you are saying that you know everything about the universe, and within this universe consciousness can only (for some reason) be grown from a mothers womb. To me, it seems extremely arrogant for you to think you know everything about this universe.

    16. #91
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy View Post
      First of all, that is a pretty terrible analogy. Of course mixing paint won't have the same effect as mixing wavelengths of light. In TV, if you want a color the TV emits that color. It emits red if you want red, it emits blue if you want blue, and if you want white it emits every color together. Every wavelength of light combined creates white. In paint, if you want a color, the paint absorbs every color except the one you want. If you want red, your paint absorbs everything but red and reflects red. If you want blue, it absorbs everything but blue and reflects blue. If you mix together every color of paint, your paint is then absorbing every color and you won't have anything but black. So not only are you comparing apples to oranges, I don't even see how that has anything to do with the argument.
      You don't need to explain this. My point was that while there are two listed ways that colors are possible, they are not representing each other because they are totally different contexts of creating color. Your conclusion simply reaffirmed this.

      Quote Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy View Post
      Second, you don't see how it is possible to create consciousness, therefore you are saying definitively that it is impossible. That is extremely closed minded. People 10,000 years ago didn't have access to enough information to even fathom how it could be possible to create something like the internet. If you tried to tell them what an electron was they would probably laugh and walk away. It seemed reasonable to them because how could something like that exist? However, you are just perpetuating that instead of learning from their mistakes. Just because you don't see how it could be possible doesn't mean it never will be. By saying, without a doubt, that something can never possibly happen you are saying that you know everything about the universe, and within this universe consciousness can only (for some reason) be grown from a mothers womb. To me, it seems extremely arrogant for you to think you know everything about this universe.
      Like I have said, it is a matter of paradigm and recognition thereof. Is it arrogant that someone says that the sky can never fall?

    17. #92
      Member Inside This Fantasy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Posts
      66
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      You don't need to explain this. My point was that while there are two listed ways that colors are possible, they are not representing each other because they are totally different contexts of creating color. Your conclusion simply reaffirmed this.



      Like I have said, it is a matter of paradigm and recognition thereof. Is it arrogant that someone says that the sky can never fall?
      Well you've confused me with your colors explanation, because I have no idea what you meant by it.

      As for our argument, I agree that we view the world through different paradigms. I am trying to say it is naive to say something will never happen. It is only ever reasonable to say something will probably never happen. I would think its naive to say the sky will never fall. Since you definitely do not know everything, you can't be sure there is no scenario where the sky will fall. If you say it never will, then you naively think you know everything (whether you consciously think you do or not).

    18. #93
      Member Photolysis's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,270
      Likes
      316
      Similarly, we cannot program an illogical, natural, organic being with some limited and self-created system of logic.
      Why not? If you learn about the brain, you'd understand that nerve impulses are essentially the 0s and 1s of binary. The way we perceive stimuli is to do with the rate of these pulses. The analogue nature of our senses comes from the analogue nature of the chemical reactions that drive them.

      Furthermore, you assume (with nothing to back it up) that A) you would have to program the being itself instead of it being an emergent property of the system and B) that everything must be logical because the input must adhere to computer logic.

      There is no reason to think that our minds are not the result of logical consistent laws of physics, just that it is a property that emerges from the very complex human nervous system. Obviously we do not fully understand the process, at least for the moment.

      In short, you're doing the same and simply being opinionated but claiming it to be fact, but you do at least have decency to explain your thoughts on the matter.

      There is also arrogance in the human intellect itself, perhaps that thinks it can possibly program a human being through "AI" to great extents. I think it is naive. AI robots will never have consciousness.
      How is it arrogant to think "this may be possible at some point in the future as we continue to increase our knowledge"? Similarly to "one day we might completely cure cancer" or "one day we might be able to halt ageing".

      On the contrary, it is arrogant of you to assert so boldly that "AI will never have consciousness". As I said above, whilst you have at least given your reasoning, the reasoning itself stands on many assumptions that are in no way definitely proven (or even remotely near to it).

    19. #94
      Member Inside This Fantasy's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2009
      Posts
      66
      Likes
      0
      Quote Originally Posted by Photolysis View Post
      How is it arrogant to think "this may be possible at some point in the future as we continue to increase our knowledge"? Similarly to "one day we might completely cure cancer" or "one day we might be able to halt ageing".

      On the contrary, it is arrogant of you to assert so boldly that "AI will never have consciousness". As I said above, whilst you have at least given your reasoning, the reasoning itself stands on many assumptions that are in no way definitely proven (or even remotely near to it).
      I completely agree with you, but I get the feeling you skipped over the last few posts in this thread. Really and I were just arguing those points.

      As for your explanation of how the brain works with nerve pulses, I also agree with you, but really has already made it clear he believes there is "something" special about the brain, and its just the way he views things so there isn't much point in debating it with him. I don't mean to detract from the points you made, but you're pretty much beating a dead horse at this point.

    20. #95
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by Inside This Fantasy View Post
      Well you've confused me with your colors explanation, because I have no idea what you meant by it.

      As for our argument, I agree that we view the world through different paradigms. I am trying to say it is naive to say something will never happen. It is only ever reasonable to say something will probably never happen. I would think its naive to say the sky will never fall. Since you definitely do not know everything, you can't be sure there is no scenario where the sky will fall. If you say it never will, then you naively think you know everything (whether you consciously think you do or not).
      Quote Originally Posted by Photolysis View Post
      How is it arrogant to think "this may be possible at some point in the future as we continue to increase our knowledge"? Similarly to "one day we might completely cure cancer" or "one day we might be able to halt ageing".
      I'm quite surprised that neither of you have understood my analogies. I am saying that the basic flaw or limitation here is that of perception, in that the context or paradigm of a particular issue is not recognised. For example, it is not naive to think that the sky will never fall, because otherwise there would be the assumption that it is an actual possibility (the sky is limitless). You cannot mix red, blue and green paint and expect white (as with television pixels) because it is a different context to form colors.

      Now, why should a program be able to form consciousness? I think it is flawed from the beginning: (assuming that) consciousness is a product of neuronal activity, therefore this program/binary must produce consciousness.

      Quote Originally Posted by Photolysis View Post
      Why not? If you learn about the brain, you'd understand that nerve impulses are essentially the 0s and 1s of binary. The way we perceive stimuli is to do with the rate of these pulses. The analogue nature of our senses comes from the analogue nature of the chemical reactions that drive them.
      So you may be able to emulate a nerve response like this, but that doesn't mean that you can create conscious beings with a binary system. Nervous systems may be linear in this sense, but consciousness itself is non-linear and is rooted in evolution and living. In this way it is an interconnected source of life, and to reproduce but a small figment of it would merely mirror what we can perceive of it, and nothing more.

      Programming it would also fall within the presumption of causality, but unfortunately nothing can be "programmed", since programs, like causal relationships, have no actual existence in consciousness. There may be so-called "programs" of the mind and belief systems, but they are not consciousness either.

      Quote Originally Posted by Photolysis View Post
      Furthermore, you assume (with nothing to back it up) that A) you would have to program the being itself instead of it being an emergent property of the system and B) that everything must be logical because the input must adhere to computer logic.
      Rather, I disagree that consciousness is an emergent property, and that it is the other way around: That neuronal and genetic activity are functions and emergent expressions of consciousness - the context for our very awareness and life-form.

    21. #96
      Member Bonsay's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Location
      In a pot.
      Posts
      2,706
      Likes
      60
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      Rather, I disagree that consciousness is an emergent property, and that it is the other way around: That neuronal and genetic activity are functions and emergent expressions of consciousness - the context for our very awareness and life-form.
      Well there you go. Didn't you say here you believe that consciousness is independent of the brain? How can you prove or disprove it and why is this still being discussed. I might as well say something completely x and argue it indefinitely. How can we "do science" if we make things up. Do you have anything at all to disprove the possible existence of AI, beside your personal beliefs? I have the brain as my proof of the possibility of AI, where is yours?
      C:\Documents and Settings\Akul\My Documents\My Pictures\Sig.gif

    22. #97
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by Bonsay View Post
      Well there you go. Didn't you say here you believe that consciousness is independent of the brain? How can you prove or disprove it and why is this still being discussed. I might as well say something completely x and argue it indefinitely. How can we "do science" if we make things up.
      Yes I have repeated myself. Consciousness is not independent from the brain as such, but it is both within it and beyond it. It is not subject to the brain. E.g. If we "get" brain damage, consciousness is still there as the essence of life, until death. It is not our state of mind.

      Quote Originally Posted by Bonsay View Post
      Do you have anything at all to disprove the possible existence of AI, beside your personal beliefs? I have the brain as my proof of the possibility of AI, where is yours?
      Well, then I have consciousness as my proof. Just kidding.

      I am not disproving AI. I am saying that intrinsically as a human concept, it is limited to perception and will not be able to form consciousness because of its paradigm or system. It will only be able to act out within the confines of programming and the assumption of causality. This obviously has nothing to do with putting actual microchips in someones brain (that is a different story), but building a "human-smart" conscious robot.

      Most of my information is gathered from the well renowned spiritual teacher, Dr. David Hawkins, who has a great clinical/psychiatric background and has studied the nature of consciousness for many years. Also, see Henry Stapp for the quantum (mechanical) explanations for the related kinesiologic muscle responses as subtle functions of consciousness. The main area of interest here is that consciousness intrinsically has prior "attractor patterns" (non-linear dynamics) which dominates a persons way of life, including spiritual awareness and behavioral proclivities, beliefs systems, choices, etc.
      Last edited by really; 03-28-2009 at 05:12 AM.

    23. #98
      Banned
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Big Village, North America
      Posts
      1,953
      Likes
      87
      Quote Originally Posted by Photolysis View Post
      Except you've just used your opinionated, unsubstantiated beliefs to criticise people who believe there is nothing extra to consciousness as "deluded", to declare AI as "impossible", as well as arrogantly claim you understand consciousness (since you claim others misunderstand it).

      You can't defend that.
      At least let me try...Going back to what I said...

      "Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'."

      I am merely saying that we are not the sum of our parts. Perhaps a little too strongly for some of the sensitive readers here. To think we can build robots complex enough to attain consciousness at our level and even surpass us is ludicrous. I mean, at best we create a robot that can continually upgrade itself and store more and more information on it's database. But just because the robot appears to be alive and conscious doesn't mean a god damn thing. You can go online and talk to Alan and even make your own HAL bot. If you spent enough time programming it's responses I'm sure that it would seem rather intelligent, and even reflective at times. Sure you can ask it questions and it will respond, but that is not consciousness. It is merely selecting a suitable response. And I think (yes i'm just using my brain, sorry?) that this is the best we can do, and I think it will be done on a massive scale in the future which will lead people to believe that these robots are intelligent creatures capable of adapting to situations (social, physical, etc). Which they will to a certain extent like an animal. It's just like when a bird gets stuck in an oil spill, it can't do anything in that situation, it needs a more sophisticated being such as ourselves to heal it. We will always be upgrading and improving our creations but not to this extent.

      The ability for humans to turn 'inward' and reflect upon their actions, words, and thoughts is intrinsically human. Robots will only have the capability to respond to what is already 'out there' and what has already happened. Just like an animal.

      At best we will create a self-upgrading pseudo-consciousness but never will we create a conscious being aside from having a child.
      Last edited by grasshoppa; 03-28-2009 at 05:45 AM.

    24. #99
      This is my title. Licity's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      632
      Likes
      2
      Let's say I get a really high-resolution scanner like and MRI and make a set of diagrams showing EXACTLY what a human brain looks like, down to the individual molecules. Now I have a lot of carbon and other molecules. I'm putting these molecules in the right order to make an exactly perfect copy of the brain I mapped. You're saying this perfect copy would not be conscious if it had some way of communicating?

    25. #100
      Member really's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,676
      Likes
      56
      Quote Originally Posted by grasshoppa View Post
      At least let me try...Going back to what I said...

      "Those who think AI is possible are misunderstanding conciousness itself. The idea that we can create AI comes from our delusional materialist sense of 'I am the sum of my parts'."

      I am merely saying that we are not the sum of our parts. Perhaps a little too strongly for some of the sensitive readers here. To think we can build robots complex enough to attain consciousness at our level and even surpass us is ludicrous. I mean, at best we create a robot that can continually upgrade itself and store more and more information on it's database. But just because the robot appears to be alive and conscious doesn't mean a god damn thing. You can go online and talk to Alan and even make your own HAL bot. If you spent enough time programming it's responses I'm sure that it would seem rather intelligent, and even reflective at times. Sure you can ask it questions and it will respond, but that is not consciousness. It is merely selecting a suitable response. And I think (yes i'm just using my brain, sorry?) that this is the best we can do, and I think it will be done on a massive scale in the future which will lead people to believe that these robots are intelligent creatures capable of adapting to situations (social, physical, etc). Which they will to a certain extent like an animal. It's just like when a bird gets stuck in an oil spill, it can't do anything in that situation, it needs a more sophisticated being such as ourselves to heal it. We will always be upgrading and improving our creations but not to this extent.

      The ability for humans to turn 'inward' and reflect upon their actions, words, and thoughts is intrinsically human. Robots will only have the capability to respond to what is already 'out there' and what has already happened. Just like an animal.

      At best we will create a self-upgrading pseudo-consciousness but never will we create a conscious being aside from having a child.
      I agree with you and I like the way you have explained this. It is probably more understandable than my own explanations; you've basically outlined the essentials of my response in a more casual way. The only other thing I'd like to say is, we humans are animals. Animals are conscious beings too, just less conscious in most cases.
      Last edited by really; 03-28-2009 at 12:26 PM.

    Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •