When machines become self-aware I will become an atheist (maybe)

[MrMrdevincamus]

When machines become self-aware I will become an atheist (maybe)

I love science despite my sometimes critiquing of its principles motivations, and what seems like a abhorrence of religion and spiritual metaphysics. I have been following the development of artificial intelligence and the efforts to make machines self aware. It seems that machines may never have the ability express real (non-programmed) emotions or have any chance to become self-aware/sentient. I don't like to say 'never' so lets say for the foreseeable future. The good news is machine intelligence such as raw computational power and the ability to process information will probably surpass the human brain soon sans human compassion and possess a soul. Ok, the talking point is this. I am a theist, maybe pantheist inclined that feels sentient machines are not possible with our technology. I feel 'God' is the only deity that can create a (human level) self aware unit, flesh and blood, quantum/optical, or otherwise. Sure machines can or will soon be able to perfectly mimic self awareness but that is not the same thing. If scientists did create a machine with human level self awareness and intelligence I would question the validity of all my Christian beliefs. So HAL, are you out there? HAL???...if you are there open the pod door....please?

 

[Kemosloby]

Suppose someone prayed to God to make their machines self aware and God obliged them? Why couldn't God make a machine self aware as easily as a human? Maybe he would do it to trip people up, If Satan suggested those who don't Love God would be inclined to believe sentient machines were evidence there was no God.

 

[bobhikes]

To make a machine self-aware it would have to mimic humans and it would then be to inefficient and expensive to operate. Humans are cheaper labor so they will never do it.

 

[Katzpur]

When machines become self-aware I will become an atheist (maybe)

I love science despite my sometimes critiquing of its principles motivations, and what seems like a abhorrence of religion and spiritual metaphysics. I have been following the development of artificial intelligence and the efforts to make machines self aware. It seems that machines may never have the ability express real (non-programmed) emotions or have any chance to become self-aware/sentient. I don't like to say 'never' so lets say for the foreseeable future. The good news is machine intelligence such as raw computational power and the ability to process information will probably surpass the human brain soon sans human compassion and possess a soul. Ok, the talking point is this. I am a theist, maybe pantheist inclined that feels sentient machines are not possible with our technology. I feel 'God' is the only deity that can create a (human level) self aware unit, flesh and blood, quantum/optical, or otherwise. Sure machines can or will soon be able to perfectly mimic self awareness but that is not the same thing. If scientists did create a machine with human level self awareness and intelligence I would question the validity of all my Christian beliefs. So HAL, are you out there? HAL???...if you are there open the pod door....please?

Aside from the fact that I don't see science as the enemy (as you appear to), I can agree with everything in your post. I am convinced that there is a God and cannot fathom how the human life could exist if that were not the case. Because I find it pointless to try to argue for the existence of a God with someone who is convinced that one does not exist, I will probably not have much to say on your thread. But, I'm with you in spirit. Good luck!

 

[siti]

Its an interesting question. I am not exactly sure how you are defining self-awareness and for that reason I am not sure how to vote in your poll. However, this sentence strikes me as a bit odd:

Sure machines can or will soon be able to perfectly mimic self awareness but that is not the same thing.

If a machine perfectly mimics self-awareness how is it "not the same thing" and how would we know either if it was or if it was not?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

When machines become self-aware I will become an atheist (maybe)

I love science despite my sometimes critiquing of its principles motivations, and what seems like a abhorrence of religion and spiritual metaphysics. I have been following the development of artificial intelligence and the efforts to make machines self aware. It seems that machines may never have the ability express real (non-programmed) emotions or have any chance to become self-aware/sentient. I don't like to say 'never' so lets say for the foreseeable future. The good news is machine intelligence such as raw computational power and the ability to process information will probably surpass the human brain soon sans human compassion and possess a soul. Ok, the talking point is this. I am a theist, maybe pantheist inclined that feels sentient machines are not possible with our technology. I feel 'God' is the only deity that can create a (human level) self aware unit, flesh and blood, quantum/optical, or otherwise. Sure machines can or will soon be able to perfectly mimic self awareness but that is not the same thing. If scientists did create a machine with human level self awareness and intelligence I would question the validity of all my Christian beliefs. So HAL, are you out there? HAL???...if you are there open the pod door....please?

This is ambitious.
I am still hoping that more people will become self-aware.
How can anyone be even sure that they are not the only aware being in the universe?
It may seem a ridiculous point to make, but how do we even measure self-awareness?

A robot that is programmed to take into account its own physical dimensions could be said to be self-aware.
But that is likely not what you meant, you are probably asking about consciousness.

But the entire universe consists of God, thus all computers already have consciousness and self-awareness.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you think computers will become self-aware ?

I voted 'Never' on this one. I believe even the human brain is not by itself self-aware. It requires an animating spirit (call it God/Brahman) that incarnates the body and experiences. Atoms and electrons moving around can not experience as one conscious entity no matter of the complexity.

 

[David T]

When machines become self-aware I will become an atheist (maybe)

I love science despite my sometimes critiquing of its principles motivations, and what seems like a abhorrence of religion and spiritual metaphysics. I have been following the development of artificial intelligence and the efforts to make machines self aware. It seems that machines may never have the ability express real (non-programmed) emotions or have any chance to become self-aware/sentient. I don't like to say 'never' so lets say for the foreseeable future. The good news is machine intelligence such as raw computational power and the ability to process information will probably surpass the human brain soon sans human compassion and possess a soul. Ok, the talking point is this. I am a theist, maybe pantheist inclined that feels sentient machines are not possible with our technology. I feel 'God' is the only deity that can create a (human level) self aware unit, flesh and blood, quantum/optical, or otherwise. Sure machines can or will soon be able to perfectly mimic self awareness but that is not the same thing. If scientists did create a machine with human level self awareness and intelligence I would question the validity of all my Christian beliefs. So HAL, are you out there? HAL???...if you are there open the pod door....please?

We need an example of it in nature. I recently was watching a documentry called galaxy quest where rocks were self organizing into sentiment creatures, based on this emperical evidence I would say that organized inert matter can be self aware.

Also the scientist Walt Disney already had a scientific proof of concept with a wooden boy back in The 50's. The talking cricket isnt real just for effect.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I prefer Michael from Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Personally, I feel consciousness is a matter of degree, and at least everything that we consider living is at least a little bit conscious...even microbes, to my way of thinking, go around say "I, I, I" to themselves...

I'm not interested in trying to define it though. I suspect that eventually computers will get good enough to fake humans most of the time, and may in time become self-aware, too. Since we have difficulty defining what we mean even when we're talking about ourselves, I'm not too worried about it...

 

[Etritonakin]

I don't think self-awareness is really difficult at all -or the real issue.
Self-awareness is pretty much looking into a mirror -a matter of perspective -and should be relatively easy to program.

Independent thought, self-determination/will and creativity are the real issues.
Artificial intelligence would have to be made so -or made able to become so independently -but I suppose we might do so without realizing it.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Suppose someone prayed to God to make their machines self aware and God obliged them? Why couldn't God make a machine self aware as easily as a human? Maybe he would do it to trip people up, If Satan suggested those who don't Love God would be inclined to believe sentient machines were evidence there was no God.

The reason a machine obtaining sentience would damage my faith is because I feel human level self-awareness sacred. The bible does not say God give a machine a
nephesh (the Hebrew word for ‘living being’ or ‘soul’)* or mention it anywhere in scripture. The word Nephesh and its variations means also that it gives man a sense of emotions and consciousness and feelings. Nephesh also can be given to other species when used with a prefix. There is no word for machine soul etc. As for the latter part of your question there would be biblical hints, warnings or examples if Satan was playing games with Gods favorite beings before he kicked unrighteous satanic butt teaching the red fellow the error of his ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

I voted <50 to 100 years>.
That way, I won't be around to be proven wrong.
But the devil will lie in the definition of "self aware".

 

[Darkstorn]

The reason a machine obtaining sentience would damage my faith is because I feel human level self-awareness sacred.

Here's the problem: If you use "feeling" to gauge what's "human level self-awareness" in the first place, it means i can also gauge it by feeling... You can probably see why instead they'd use science to determine self-awareness. Otherwise i could just say that no: I "feel" that all greater apes have human level self-awareness.

I also think machine self-awareness is MUCH easier to achieve and much closer than what some people might think... The moment you have a complex enough self-learning system, it can eventually learn to differentiate itself from the environment.

Methinks in the end it'll be so trivial that even Google could do it in the next 5 years if they actually wanted to...

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Never.

Here is why: How does a system which depends on every other part within the system to function, look back on itself? Do the parts within it look at at the system or does the system itself look back on itself? Both are impossible, because the parts cannot act independently of the system and the system has no existence independent of the parts.

Therefore you cannot design any system, whether it is a system of cogs, or a system of electronic circuits which can become self-aware. It is only a fantasy that exists in Hollywood movies, Disney cartoons and in the minds of materialists.

 

[Darkstorn]

Here is why: How does a system which depends on every other part within the system to function, look back on itself?

How does a human? That's how. And a human doesn't need to LOOK back on itself necessarily. It only has to feel something external, and it can be for example, the sense of touch as well. We ACTUALLY do the process by thinking about it... Because our brain and sensory organs are complex enough for us to be able to. Because a human can, a complex enough machine could.

Do the parts within it look at at the system or does the system itself look back on itself? Both are impossible, because the parts cannot act independently of the system and the system has no existence independent of the parts.

A machine is the sum of its parts just like a human is the sum of its parts. There is no difference in this sense.

Therefore you cannot design any system, whether it is a system of cogs, or a system of electronic circuits which can become self-aware. It is only a fantasy that exists in Hollywood movies, Disney cartoons and in the minds of materialists.

I think you're showing a gross lack of imagination here. I think your idea that it's impossible and your explanations as to why are complete fantasy.

Your conclusions simply are not logical.

 

[siti]

Never.

Here is why: How does a system which depends on every other part within the system to function, look back on itself? Do the parts within it look at at the system or does the system itself look back on itself? Both are impossible, because the parts cannot act independently of the system and the system has no existence independent of the parts.

Therefore you cannot design any system, whether it is a system of cogs, or a system of electronic circuits which can become self-aware. It is only a fantasy that exists in Hollywood movies, Disney cartoons and in the minds of materialists.

Then you are also impossible - or a Disney cartoon - come to think of it you might have a point after all!

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

How does a human? That's how. And a human doesn't need to LOOK back on itself necessarily. It only has to feel something external, and it can be for example, the sense of touch as well. We ACTUALLY do the process by thinking about it... Because our brain and sensory organs are complex enough for us to be able to. Because a human can, a complex enough machine could.

LOL, that is based on your belief that humans are biological systems that look back on themselves.

I think you're showing a gross lack of imagination here. I think your idea that it's impossible and your explanations as to why are complete fantasy.

Your conclusions simply are not logical.

No, your conclusions are not logical. You are telling me a system of parts which only functions when all its parts functions and ceases to function when all its parts cease to functions, then looks back on itself sees itself and its parts?

Read Searl's Chinese room thought experiment to see why it is an impossible for a system to ever reflect or look back on itself. A translating program can use an algorithm to convert each word of English into its Chinese equivalent, but but the algorithm itself cannot understand "Chinese"

You come up with fantasies like this because you never examine the logic of what you are proposing and it requires rational people to show you how it doesn't work.

 

[Darkstorn]

LOL, that is based on your belief that humans are biological systems that look back on themselves.

Yes, i do believe that humans are biological systems. Are you making fun of my beliefs now? To try and prove your point?

No, your conclusions are not logical.

Yes, they most definitely are.

You are telling me a system of parts which only functions when all its parts functions and ceases to function when all its part functions, then looks back on itself sees itself and its parts?

No. But i'm saying a human is such a system.

Read Searl's Chinese room though experiment to see why it is an impossible for a system to ever reflect or look back on itself. A translating program can use an algorithm to convert each word of English into its Chinese equivalent, but but the algorithm itself cannot understand "Chinese"

A human is a system JUST like that though. Unless you are somehow claiming that there's a difference... Then: What is the difference?

You come up with fantasies like this because you never examine the logic of what you are proposing and it requires rational people to show you how it doesn't work.

You haven't shown how it doesn't work though. Therefore i guess you are not rational?

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Yes, i do believe that humans are biological systems. Are you making fun of my beliefs now? To try and prove your point?

You are trying to prove a point with your belief? It is not proven that humans are just biological systems that became self-aware, that is a belief held by materialists. If you don't get this, don't bother replying back to me.

 

[Darkstorn]

You are trying to prove a point with your belief?

No. But with the other things you ignored in your reply.

It is not proven that humans are just biological self that became self-aware, that is a belief held by materialists.

I wasn't talking about a self though. If i was, i'd tell you this: The self is a system composed of its parts. None of your individual parts are the self itself.

I think your fervent anti-materialism is obstructing the fact from you that anti-materialism is the same exact thing as materialism: An extreme view still preoccupied with the rejection of materialism.

Also: You never talked about self. This thread isn't about the self as an actual entity, but whether it's possible for a machine to exist that can differentiate its "self" from the environment. This is NOT an argument about the existence or non-existence of a self within a machine. Or a human for that matter.

If you don't get this, don't both replying back to me.

Excuse me, but it's not me that's not getting something.