Artificial Intelligence and Bot Programs

[Pork Chop Express]

Machines are not conscious. Scientists can only work within the boundaries of the applicable knowledge that's already available to them. And consciousness happens to be a great, scientific mystery. So, how can they create a machine with self-awareness, if they don't even know the cause (or, let alone, the nature) of consciousness, to begin with?

No, machines are not conscious, yet. As technology advances (robotics, nanotechnology, biotechnics) that may change but not within my lifetime I don't think. Ultimately these will be tools for humanity at large for whatever application. Take the ideology and morality (flipside to this coin) out of it and it's inevitable in my opinion. No, scientist don't know what consciousness is exactly, but that doesn't mean that it cannot or will not be created at some point. You'd be surprised by how much life imitates art.

 

[karamazov80]

I saw about 30 minutes of that movie "Her." I didn't care for it. **** machines.

 

[Solidus]

No, machines are not conscious, yet. As technology advances (robotics, nanotechnology, biotechnics) that may change but not within my lifetime I don't think. Ultimately these will be tools for humanity at large for whatever application. Take the ideology and morality (flipside to this coin) out of it and it's inevitable in my opinion. No, scientist don't know what consciousness is exactly, but that doesn't mean that it cannot or will not be created at some point. You'd be surprised by how much life imitates art.

Actually, isn't art an expression of the artist? As to whether machines will become conscious in the future... I'm not actually sure. An understanding of consciousness will require a purely scientific, and empirical breakdown on the metaphysics of the human mind - which, for the last several centuries have only been explained through philosophical conjecture.

I saw about 30 minutes of that movie "Her." I didn't care for it. **** machines.

And **** this thread .

 

[devilof76]

We can't even repair nerves. The human body can't even do that.

Nanotechnology could possibly imitate the networks of the human brain if it's been built by a human.

Consciousness is not the brain; it is the thing that uses the brain. It is likely an emergent feature of the human brain's unique physical identity, but replicating that identity outside the teleological nature of that emergence would require god-level mastery of science. It would take a full integration of physics, chemistry, biology, and their separate branches to know how to bring a teleological machine into existence.

Consciousness emerges as an attribute of life. A lot of carts in front of horses trying to make an inanimate object live.

 

[Blackthornone]

We can't even repair nerves. The human body can't even do that.

Nanotechnology could possibly imitate the networks of the human brain if it's been built by a human.

Consciousness is not the brain; it is the thing that uses the brain. It is likely an emergent feature of the human brain's unique physical identity, but replicating that identity outside the teleological nature of that emergence would require god-level mastery of science. It would take a full integration of physics, chemistry, biology, and their separate branches to know how to bring a teleological machine into existence.

Consciousness emerges as an attribute of life. A lot of carts in front of horses trying to make an inanimate object live.

A machine can have consciousness as defined by the dictionary. It just cannot be alive or have a soul.
Technology cannot create a soul.


The consciousness you are really talking about is a soul, except you refuse to call it soul.

 

[RavenEye]

Anyone read Prey by Michael Crichton? Yeah didn't work out to well with Nano.

 

[Solidus]

A machine can have consciousness as defined by the dictionary. It just cannot be alive or have a soul.
Technology cannot create a soul.


The consciousness you are really talking about is a soul, except you refuse to call it soul.

No he wasn't. The soul is the non-physical extension of one's self that continues to exist eternally, even after the body has passed away. So, I didn't see him inferring to anything like that . Consciousness, on the other hand, can be assumed as being finite in nature - while the body exists purely as an object of consciousness.

 

[Blackthornone]

No he wasn't. The soul is the non-physical extension of one's self that continues to exist eternally, even after the body has passed away. So, I didn't see him inferring to anything like that . Consciousness, on the other hand, can be assumed as being finite in nature - while the body exists purely as an object of consciousness.

You are assuming that the soul is created because of the body, and that does not make sense. There have been cases of reincarnation accounts of children who had no exposure at all to certain information, and yet recounted past life events with such detail that it could later be verified by researching people with that same history.

At any rate, there is no proof that the soul is created as a result of the body existing.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnXxC-nVsJY

 

[Irvy]

Some kid talks a load of gibberish = souls exist.

 

[fosing]

oh shat just got real.

*cue music down memory lane for blackthornone's past experience


lolz

 

[Solidus]

You are assuming that the soul is created because of the body, and that does not make sense. There have been cases of reincarnation accounts of children who had no exposure at all to certain information, and yet recounted past life events with such detail that it could later be verified by researching people with that same history.

At any rate, there is no proof that the soul is created as a result of the body existing.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnXxC-nVsJY

I never assumed, nor inferred about the "creation" of a soul in what I mentioned. However, both Descartes and Spinoza have explained the metaphysics of the body and mind (in the contrasting views of "dualism" and the "mind-body identity", respectively). That's the basis of what I was referring to. You know - actual philosophy, as it relates to the thread topic, and not documented accounts of children who are in need of psychiatric care . Please stay on topic.

 

[crows]

 

[Blackthornone]

Some kid talks a load of gibberish = souls exist.

That same gif can be used in response to souls not existing.
What the boy said wasn't gibberish. If you watched the video you would know that he said things only the person with the past life he said he had could know.

There is a collective belief that souls and reincarnation that souls do not exist based on sheer ignorance which is taken as truth without any proof they don't exist. Then you have accounts like this that lends some proof that it does exist, and there is no real way of explaining how these accounts could exist, unless these children are psychic, knowing things they have never had experience with before.

Obviously, psychic phenomenon is dismissed as invalid without proof as well, because too many powerful people in this world can't stand the idea that others could have abilities they can't, particularly if they are scientists or doctors, ect.

The more time and money=personal investment you have in a belief, like the belief that your education entitles you to being superior over others, the less you are willing to tolerate any ideas that would show you not to be that superior.

This is true in all areas, not just psychic phenomenon. case in point, everyone believed the Earth was flat at one time. All those scholars and scientists KNEW it, didn't they? People were even killed for saying the Earth was round.



Some people get so caught up in tradition and beliefs based upon ignorance that they are unwilling to admit any truth that proves their beliefs false.

 

[devilof76]

The superstition that consciousness precedes existence (and thus will endure when existence ends) is one of the oldest traditions in the book.

 

[Blackthornone]

The superstition that consciousness precedes existence (and thus will endure when existence ends) is one of the oldest traditions in the book.

It is not disproven.

There are a lot of ideas that are old, and yet are valid.

 

[devilof76]

It is not proved. It doesn't even make sense.

But that's beside the point: don't try to discredit ideas based on their traditional status and then turn around and claim it has no bearing on the ideas you're peddling.

 

[Blackthornone]

It is not proved. It doesn't even make sense.

But that's beside the point: don't try to discredit ideas based on their traditional status and then turn around and claim it has no bearing on the ideas you're peddling.

I said tradition and beliefs based upon ignorance. Ignorance was the key word. I meant tradition based upon ignorance. I expected that to say tradition and belief based upon ignorance would be sufficient. Apparently I should have said tradition based upon ignorance and belief based upon ignorance. I used the word ignorance just one time for the sake of economy of words.




Why doesn't it make sense? If someone presents information that is specific and they had no prior exposure to said information, why doesn't it make sense that it could be a past life memory?

Since they had no experience with it in the present life, it can't be a present life memory, so it is logical to conclude that it is a past life memory. Memory is what we use to recall information and ideas, so that we can present them in the present.
The information claimed to be past life memory had to come from SOMEWHERE, and since it wasn't the present life, it can only be a past life or a psychically gathered piece of information, because those are the only two ways you can get specific information about something you have never had any experience with in this life.

Is there another way you are aware of you can tell me?

 

[Lejuan]

Past lives

 

[devilof76]

I said tradition and beliefs based upon ignorance. Ignorance was the key word. I meant tradition based upon ignorance. I expected that to say tradition and belief based upon ignorance would be sufficient. Apparently I should have said tradition based upon ignorance and belief based upon ignorance.

No, ignorance was clear. It's even more clear now. I'm sorry, did I have to include it as well? Apparently I did.

People who refuse to fall for psychic hustlers are ignorant. People who believe that spirits jump from body to body across hundreds of years is playing with a full deck. You've convinced me beyond the most unreasonable depths of my capacity for unreasonable doubt. Somebody give this guy a degree.

 

[fosing]

man, we're not going back to that babies past lives choosing their mommas are we? or was that unborn babies?