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

[Spirit_Warrior]

To illustrate my point how stupid this argument is that a system can look back at itself. Here is an illustration

1) Here is a basic system consisting of three parts

2) 5 parts

3) Of several dozens of parts

4 Of Hundreds of parts

At what n number of parts does the system become aware of itself? Billions, trillions? Never. You can replace the parts with pistons and levers, electric circuits and you will get exactly the same outcome.

The materialist complexity argument is a pure fantasy.

 

[Sapiens]

...if you are there open the pod door....please?

Sorry Dave, I can't do that.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I wasn't talking about a self though.

Sorry, that was a typo, I meant to "system" I had corrected the post but you had replied already.

 

[Darkstorn]

To illustrate my point how stupid this argument is that a system can look back at itself. Here is an illustration

I don't think you're succeeding in showing its stupidity. You have still not been able to show how a human is any different from any other complex system for example.

And this is STILL not a thread about the existence or non-existence of a tangible self. Self-awareness is a literary term that means you are aware of yourself as separate from the environment. That's it. It's not an argument for the self. It simply means this: You are distinct from the environment around you, and specifically, the understanding that you are thus. You don't need to be a human for that. Many animals are self-aware.

At what n number of parts does the system become aware of itself? Billions, trillions? Never. You can replace the parts with pistons and levers, electric circuits and you will get exactly the same outcome.

I still don't think you understand what this thread is about. Because every single one of your examples also applies to humans. Are you here trying to argue that even humans don't have a self? Well, i agree on that regard, but it would mean that you are literally in the wrong thread.

The materialist complexity argument is a pure fantasy.

Anti-materialism is still materialism.

/E: TLDR: This thread is not about beliefs in selves of any kind. Self-awareness can be measured. You are in the wrong thread if you're here arguing about belief in selves. You are grossly missing the point. I am also not a materialist.

 

[siti]

At what n number of parts does the system become aware of itself?

Its not the number of parts (but that would be close to 10^11 - the parts are called neurons) so much as the number of connections - approximately somewhere between 10^14 and 10^15 connections to get human self-awareness - fewer for lower levels of self-awareness.

 

[Cobol]

I say more than a hundred years or never.

We need machines that duplicate the essential electrochemical processes that are occurring in the brain during conscious states. If this were possible at all without organic materials, it would presumably require more than Turing machines, which are purely syntactic processors, and digital simulations, which may lack the necessary physical mechanisms.

DNA software driven machines, suggest a different formulation, where a cell is a machine which turns experiences into biology, going from commanding our devices to teaching them.

 

[Terese]

I voted never, but robots are so cool!

 

[Lorgar-Aurelian]

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?

I can tell you some scientists really have little interest in science and are far more interested in fame and money. I can't blame some of them too much on the money part because some of them simply want to survive but still.

Machines can become "self aware" but you have to give them the ample programing to actually have that happen. A machine can't do anything you don't give it the hardware to do which is why I find the idea of machines just becoming self aware utter nonsense. You can't just have a full range of emotions out of thin air.

The idea that a washing machine can just suddenly feel joy is on the same level as a robot just suddenly feeling joy. I've heard things like this and the singularity called "the atheist's fantasy."

 

[Darkstorn]

Machines can become "self aware" but you have to give them the ample programing to actually have that happen.

A human brain has "ample programming" in the form of genetic information; Some of our behaviour is based on instinct. "Programming" used as a term that implies something lesser than another random thing, is not a valid argument. It's based on feeling. Just because "something is programmed" doesn't lower its value unless you choose it to. It's very subjective, and you're mistaking it as an objective fact. It's not.

A machine can't do anything you don't give it the hardware to do which is why I find the idea of machines just becoming self aware utter nonsense.

A human is also a subject of its hardware. You're making another mistake: You are putting value to the word "hardware" and implying that it's somehow lesser than "a bunch of meat". Another subjective view misinterpreted as objective fact.

A machine is nothing if not for the hardware. The same thing for humans, just replace "hardware" with something that applies to organics.

Machines wouldn't "just" become self-aware. Nothing "just" happens.

You can't just have a full range of emotions out of thin air.

Self-awareness is not an emotion. And emotions are not a prerequisite for self-awareness. And you can't have anything out of thin air unless you had the means to change the constituency of "thin air" and transform it into something else. So it's not a point with much value.

The idea that a washing machine can just suddenly feel joy is on the same level as a robot just suddenly feeling joy.

Why does it have to be "suddenly"? You're implying that it would happen accidentally, "out of nowhere". This makes very little sense. Humans didn't just suddenly start feeling joy either... Nothing happens "suddenly out of nowhere" even if from your perspective if might look that way: Usually it only looks that way when you don't fully understand the issue you're thinking...

I've heard things like this and the singularity called "the atheist's fantasy."

I've heard people like you use this fantasy to make yourself feel better about your lack of knowledge: You are again trying to reduce something in value to the level of your subjective assessment. An OBJECTIVE assessment would be thus: If you think it's fantasy, it's most likely because you don't fully understand it. And to me it seems that way indeed.

I find it VERY unimaginative to consider something impossible "just because". Especially on a forum where many believe in the supernatural... I mean, you call it fantasy, but you don't afford the same level of criticism to your own holy scriptures, whatever they might be.'

/E: I'd like to add that a machine's self-awareness and sentience need not be comparable to a human in order to be... Well... Self-aware or sentient. I think it's our mistake for anthropomorphizing. You could build an "analogue" of something with something totally different, functionally. Imagine instead of neurons you have for example, transistors. You'd need a much larger surface area compared to a human brain and neurons, but it could still be done. Our own fault for thinking that everything must be human-like.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

I'm pretty sure most humans are basically mimicking self-awareness. And, often times, not even that much.

 

[Etritonakin]

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?


If something exists or is created, it can potentially be reverse-engineered and reproduced given knowledge, interface and opportunity (except, perhaps, the most basic components which may not be created or destroyed -as that which is created is by arrangement of that which already exists).

God's purpose for us is to make more like himself -though obedient to necessary government.
We, in turn, might make beings similar to ourselves.

Christ is called "the firstborn of many brethren", and will be given a body/interface similar to that which allowed him to create all things.

Phil 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To illustrate my point how stupid this argument is that a system can look back at itself. Here is an illustration

1) Here is a basic system consisting of three parts

2) 5 parts

3) Of several dozens of parts

4 Of Hundreds of parts

At what n number of parts does the system become aware of itself? Billions, trillions? Never. You can replace the parts with pistons and levers, electric circuits and you will get exactly the same outcome.

The materialist complexity argument is a pure fantasy.

I disagree with you on this point

If we were ever to create a self aware machine, we would have shown intelligent design, as a demonstrable means of creating awareness.

But if we could demonstrate a machine becoming self aware purely by accident... wouldn't that be more supportive of atheist beliefs?

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

Hi Bob, well maybe! Our bodies are incredible biological machines with a body that runs for hours on a cup of coffee and a couple slices of toast. That body supports a brain that has more processing power than the best super computer man can build. So you are correct humans and other biological creatures are efficient. That said assembly line production techniques allow us to build everything from cars to robots cheaply. We even today are facing ethical questions of robots displacing workers. So who knows? I would love to have a personal robot (no soul please) to interact with, if the price was right.

 

[Quintessence]

What is a "soul?"

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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!

Cool, I like agreement! FYI I do have an attitude about much of science. Its not the nuts and bolts of science that I both fear and distrust, its what the motive may be. I may be a conspiracy theory nut* because I think science has its dark side. Besides I am still PO at science because they promised me flying cars and hotels on the moon well before 2000! Science and the church has always had some sort of friction going on even though they have also complimented each other in the past.

 

[bobhikes]

Hi Bob, well maybe! Our bodies are incredible biological machines with a body that runs for hours on a cup of coffee and a couple slices of toast. That body supports a brain that has more processing power than the best super computer man can build. So you are correct humans and other biological creatures are efficient. That said assembly line production techniques allow us to build everything from cars to robots cheaply. We even today are facing ethical questions of robots displacing workers. So who knows? I would love to have a personal robot (no soul please) to interact with, if the price was right.

Robots are specialized to do a repetitive task or in a range of tasks. Robots are no where near the AI the OP is talking about. Our Selves are do to the massive amounts of sensory inputs we get, the multiple decision making processes we use, our emotional ranges and experiences that use these. To put all that into an AI would be ridiculously expensive and the amount of time we would have to wait until it learned and decided what it wanted to do would be inefficient. Imagine making an AI to solve medical problems and it decides it wants to play video games. You laugh but it can't be AI unless it can make its own decisions and as long as we limit the decisions it will not be AI.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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:
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?

Note; I am defining self-aware and conscious of its own existence as the same thing. Ownership of a soul should be the same thing or a necessary part of being aware of its own existence but much difficult to prove it exists at all.

Good question! Suppose you presented me with a machine that you say is self-aware. Lets say it passes the Turing test. So as a final vet I would again ask it if it was self aware. If it said yes, it was self aware I would then ask you for its entire program, coding etc. (I am not a computer guy so I don't know the technical names for what Ii would need). What would I be looking for? If the machine was not programmed to mimic self awareness and it did pass the rudimentary tests for it (such as the 'mirror test') then by God it would probably be self aware! Of course there may be other trickery involved that defeated my tests, but you understand what I mean. A machine should be easy to test by what its programmed to do. You hint at a much more difficult task. That is knowing if anyone but ourselves are self aware!

 

[viole]

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?

Machines are already self aware.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

Hello Johnathan! Its always a pleasure to see you replying to my stuff. Lol man funny! Yeah I too wonder if some people are really self aware...ha ha. You know the type Doing 80 mph on the interstate texting ...man scary! You are correct about measuring self awareness, and we all know the hang up scientists have with having to measure something! Well John you might have to hang your logical positivist hat up and put on your metaphysical hat and just have faith that others have the gift of self awareness, its not just you...eh?

Yes I meant to put a disclaimer on my thread defining self awareness and how I incorrectly use self awareness consciousness and soul interchangeably. Most of the time I am referencing the ability to know our own existence. I do not agree with your last statement. At least with the limits of our current knowledge. Hawking said to understand what happens beyond the event horizon we will need a new physics, I agree! I am afraid our ability to understand the truly complicated workings of the universe is beyond our capacity. Hopefully by genetic engineering and nano technology (manipulating DNA) and even machine to biological implants we will evolve into beings that are able to understand their environment more fully. I haven't always thought like that. I once thought ha TOE would be an elegant short formula like the beautiful E=MC2. I thought that was just the way of the universe. Compare those short elegant formulas with some of today's horrifically scary math etc like exists in the study of quantum gravity (string theory) and its associated material.

Thanks for your reply ...

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

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.

You and I have somewhat similar beliefs as my thread indicates. I believe in what is called duality as in mind brain duality. The overwhelming majority of scientists choose to believe only the brain exists. According to contemporary science he mind does not exist without the brain, and there is no separate mind and brain in life.