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

[MrMrdevincamus]

I dont believe AI could be a chip or a closed program. Evolution was the simplest way to make Intelligence and I don't see us creating a simpler one.

I too think a higher power created self-awareness. (I suppose we should pick out a standard word that means sentience, consciousness, self awareness, soul ie possessing a soul, ec). I tend to think our evolution was guided or programmed by an ID 'God'.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

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?

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?

You sound very confused regarding your terminology.

You say you're a Theist and maybe a pantheist? Do you even know that a Pantheist does not believe in a personal, biblical sort of god? But rather, thinks of Nature and the Universe--all things natural--to be his idea of a supreme entity? Einstein was such? And of course Baruch Spinoza is considered the Father of Pantheism.
Whereas a Theist believes in a biblical sort of God. Not to be confused with a Deist, who believes in, say, an Impersonal, non-caring god. Or a Universal Intelligence, say. A "Creator Force" that does not meddle in our affairs. Much less listen to prayers.

Also, how can one just decide to become an atheist or not? Either you believe or you do not. This is what has always been the primary problem with Pascal's Wager.

And computing power surpassed the human mind for raw processing and computational problems a long long time ago, bro. And technology has NEVER done anything to inhibit or denigrate Spirituality. And Spirituality is far different from being religious.
You can have the former without the latter.

And many Theists and Christians are NOT Spiritual at all. In fact some of the least spiritual folks I know are Christians or Muslims.

And no...I do not believe Computers--more accurately, software programs--will ever attain self-awareness. Not true sentience or consciousness as we have. At best they will be able to fool you into thinking they do.

Cheers.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

That is not what I meant.

I feel self aware. Cannot say about you, but it is a safe bet you are self aware, too.

Ergo, at least one machine is self aware.

Ciao

- viole

Yes if you feel self aware you are self aware. However don't brush away the much misaligned claims of solipsism which holds an epistemological position that 'self' is the only thing that is 'real'. Also everything external from self is a creation of self. The latter is Metaphysical Solipsism, there are two other variants as I am sure you are aware. So the bet might not be so sure! It is obvious to me with so much going on now with CERN up and running (or not) but still verifying predictions of the standard model of physics with observational and other evidences of cosmology that something big is going to happen. All science disciplines are seemingly heading down the same path, leaving the same bread crumbs, presenting connect the dot hints that science may soon show that God really did do it. (lol) ~

cogito ergo sum

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

You sound very confused regarding your terminology.

You say you're a Theist and maybe a pantheist? Do you even know that a Pantheist does not believe in a personal, biblical sort of god? But rather, thinks of Nature and the Universe--all things natural--to be his idea of a supreme entity? Einstein was such? And of course Baruch Spinoza is considered the Father of Pantheism.
Whereas a Theist believes in a biblical sort of God. Not to be confused with a Deist, who believes in, say, an Impersonal, non-caring god. Or a Universal Intelligence, say. A "Creator Force" that does not meddle in our affairs. Much less listen to prayers.

Also, how can one just decide to become an atheist or not? Either you believe or you do not. This is what has always been the primary problem with Pascal's Wager.

And computing power surpassed the human mind for raw processing and computational problems a long long time ago, bro. And technology has NEVER done anything to inhibit or denigrate Spirituality. And Spirituality is far different from being religious.
You can have the former without the latter.

And many Theists and Christians are NOT Spiritual at all. In fact some of the least spiritual folks I know are Christians or Muslims.

And no...I do not believe Computers--more accurately, software programs--will ever attain self-awareness. Not true sentience or consciousness as we have. At best they will be able to fool you into thinking they do.

Cheers.

Oh I am not confused at all! You see I separate my beliefs of the normal world that requires science and that line of thought with the faith driven supernatural world that requires faith, where evidence is nearly a four letter word. The reason I may sound confused is that I can believe both ideas. In other words I feel as a personal belief God of the bible does exist that overlaps the Deist view.Maybe the reason God does not mention that in the bible is that it was not as important as saving a human soul, which is what the universe is designed for imo, ie for life, especially humans.

And you are highly incorrect that computers have surpassed or even come close to equaling the human brain in raw processing power. A computer can by connecting enough processors together win a contest in chess or a game show on tv but it cannot do much else especially simultaneously. And as my reply stated he brain can thump a computer in raw processing power on a ppeice of tost and a cup of joe. Try that with deep blue and its offspring.

Read and weep,

IDSIA is located right above the Swiss Supercomputing Center CSCS. Some of their machines are doing 1,300 billion floating point operations per second. (Note of 2012: this text was written in 2001; by the time you read it, this number probably will be totally out of date - as of 2012, their fastest machine already did a Petaflop or a million billion FLOPS.)

Our brains are maybe 10,000 times faster than that. We have over 10 billion neurons, each with about 10,000 synaptic connections to other neurons. A frequent guess at the computational power per synapse is something like 100 multiplications per second.

RAW COMPUTING POWER

Why do people engage mouth before they educate themselves in this day of Google is high mystery to me.

 

[viole]

Yes if you feel self aware you are self aware. However don't brush away the much misaligned claims of solipsism which holds an epistemological position that 'self' is the only thing that is 'real'. Also everything external from self is a creation of self. The latter is Metaphysical Solipsism, there are two other variants as I am sure you are aware. So the bet might not be so sure! It is obvious to me with so much going on now with CERN up and running (or not) but still verifying predictions of the standard model of physics with observational and other evidences of cosmology that something big is going to happen. All science disciplines are seemingly heading down the same path, leaving the same bread crumbs, presenting connect the dot hints that science may soon show that God really did do it. (lol) ~

cogito ergo sum

I am not a solipsist.

I am just claiming that I am a self aware machine.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

That is not what I meant.

I feel self aware. Cannot say about you, but it is a safe bet you are self aware, too.

Ergo, at least one machine is self aware.

Ciao

- viole

OOPS-E, your reply was posted before I replied or more accurately before the page refreshed...


So you are a machine, or are saying there is no difference twixt a machine of metal and elements and one of biology. I could agree with you even that a biological machine could be thought of as a mechanical machine though Merman and Webster wouldn't, at least I think not. As a elementary schoolboy I began noticing the micro-graphs from (visible) light microscopes of biological samples botanical or animal looked mechanical. The rounded shapes of nature gave away to geometrical and straight shapes as magnification increased to the tunneling electron microscope level. I remembering when looking at a prepared biological sample looked so machine like I thought I could build that with a milling machine a lathe and a good shop (that was before freaking remarkable 3d printing)...anyway, so if you are a machine I would like a catalog please? Just for scientific study you understand?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_XU9x8G7khv0/SgmxEkUr8CI/AAAAAAAADHU/5__uF3IQ-xk/s400/virus.bmp

 

[viole]

So you are a machine, or are saying there is no difference tiix a machine of metal and elements and one of biology. I could agree with you even though Merman and Webster wouldn't, at least I think not.

Merman and Webster? Who are they? Some phylosophers I never heard about?

And to answer your question, atoms are atoms. So, yes, I am a machine. And this machine meaning of life, is to create more machines. As I did. i call them my kids.

And claiming that we are not machines, a-priori, just begs the question.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Merman and Webster? Who are they? Some phylosophers I never heard about?

And to answer your question, atoms are atoms. So, yes, I am a machine. And this machine meaning of life, is to create more machines. As I did. i call them my kids.

And claiming that we are not machines, a-priori, just begs the question.

Ciao

- viole

Merman and Webster is a standard dictionary most Americans have in their library or book collection. English is not my first language (it was a tie, lol) so the way I use words is somewhat queer. Getting to your reply, if we can be a little creative with our use of common words I agree with your claim fully. Also I understand your concept but disagree with your inference (conclusion) lol....I am a machine too and have avoided producing children like the black death plague.Nahhhhh, just kidding moms and dads! In reality I think parenthood is the very most noble of professions, none ranks higher IMO.

 

[Ekleipsis]

I've always considered my brain to be a biological computer

Rather odd emergent property of the universe

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

INTERFORUM MEMORANDUM...From the desk of MrMr (lol) well it sounds good ....

Truthfully again I want to apologize to the forum and members for my slow or non response to their replies etc. My health conspires against my time for recreation and the meds dull my wit, the good news is improvement is in the wings! ~






I can imagine! Many have attempted to show Einstein was either incorrect or incomplete in his wonderful musings. Your 'paper' looks fantastic and popular reader friendly.



I will look it over and respond in a decade or two....ha ha....

In matter of physics save for calculations that are simple to moderate I do not second guess the PhDs or even grad students figuring there are many capable math and scientist waiting to tear apart those who publish papers with mistakes and such. I do envy the handful of truly gifted people that can use advanced complicated mathematics and physics for discovery

Almost all such use this method:

99.99% of new ideas are wrong; so if we just make snide commentary to new ideas
then we will be 'right' 99.99% of the time without having to think

- of course that will result in zero progress.

The thing is that even the most complex of real math consists of a series of simple steps.
Now some, might have a vast number of simple steps, but if it is valid it can be explained
and understood by just about anybody - given enough time and patience.

It is my sincere belief that almost all of academic math is actually just 'baffle them with b.s.'
and thus we result in the illogical dogma of Einstein's that gravity is not instantaneous.

Gravity moving at a velocity can be easily disproved thus:

I imply you, if you carefully consider the graphic above you will realize that
binary systems must out-spiral and cease to exist if gravity has velocity.

Only instant gravity will result in a stable binary system
More on this here:
affect of gravity velocity on binary orbits (BOGVOS)

I have proven this without any doubt.
Those graphic are all generated by evolutionary algorithm, they're not just diagrams.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Machines becoming conscious wouldn't make me an atheist. That would be pretty cool. It's just more knowledge to expend my understanding of God.

 

[idav]

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 think self awareness is more about intelligence than it is awareness. I think it is possible for machines to be sentient because the building blocks already allow for it, whether awareness is fundamental or emergent, the materials should be there..

 

[Cobol]

Turing machines are said to be syntactical, meaning they only recognize symbols and not the meaning of a symbol, whereas the brain is capable of semantic understanding.

Computer speed, memory and a complex high level programming language don't matter. A strict symbol processing machine can never be a symbol understanding machine. The most accurate of brain simulations will never yield minds, nor will software programs produce conciousness. It just isn't in the cards for a strict binary processor. There is nothing about processing symbols that generates a subjective experience.

Conciousness is a biological phenomena wheir neurons communicate with one another through electrical signals in a binary fashion.

The Brain contains a host of analogue cellular and molecular processes and biochemical reactions with countless feedback loops. Even if a computer could create a digital representation of these features, a simulation of the brain is not a physical brain.

 

[Polymath257]

I put that it will be 50-100 years before machines achieve consciousness, but it could easily be much sooner. In order to do this, we would have to change our approach, I think. In particular, we need to have a system that develops genetically (mutations and selection over generations) with success or failure determined by response to an environment. Once we start doing this, I think self-awareness in machines will be fairly quick.

The question of definition is central here. Anything that passes the Turing test to the point that I don't know if it is a human or a machine would *be* conscious. Otherwise, we could argue that real, existing humans are philosophical zombies.

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

You are pretending to know with certainty what advances technology and the sciences in general will make in the future. You cannot know this.
Define "self aware". Not trying to be pedantic here, just want to be sure we are playing by he same definition. Whatever yours is will be perfectly acceptable for the discussion.
You will be long gone by the time HAL arrives, and much greater things than HAL will arrive after HAL is a forgotten relic.
Computers will be able to show compassion and other emotions someday. That day is a very long way off, I think.
As to a soul, it has never been scientifically demonstrated that such a thing exists.

 

[Polymath257]

Computers have semantic aspects, though. They can respond to events in their environment, often in unexpected ways and can be context sensitive. That *is* semantics.