Can machines be conscious?

[SandChigger]

Interesting. I could spew insults at the most advanced computers without their taking offense. What's driving that lump of meat that the most advanced machines cannot acquire?

This was a retort?

I can imagine the attempt to ape consciousness with machines. ...

No, I think the rest of your post there shows you can't.

[A Thing of Eternity]

And yet, it hasn't been proven that the brain does generate awareness; so how would assuming that to be the case be any different than my assuming otherwise?

Postulating an extra metaphysical entity is not a favourable decision, and Occam's Razor says no.

Exactly. You can't just say, "well neither of us have been proved right or wrong, so we both have an equal liklihood of being right". You ask how is your assumption any different from mine? It is as different as different gets.

Here's an example:

I believe we are living in the Matrix (I don't really). I would like to see proof that this is not the case, I don't think there is any.

So by your logic, or at least the logic you've laid out so far - the above statement is a valid belief. There is no way to disprove it, just as there is no way to definitively disprove any kind of creator, but that doesn't make it valid, or make it a 50/50 situation that we might be in the real world, or might be in a simulation.

Your assumption that we have supernatural souls is not something I can disprove. Even when we eventually proove that the brain does account for all of "consciousness" people will still hang onto their belief in a soul. But that doesn't make it EQUALLY valid to assuming a simpler more scientific explanation.

[MrFlibble]

It is also noteworthy that, according to Karl Popper, a hypothesis or theory that is not falsifiable cannot be scientific.

[SandChigger]

Yeah, that approach has worked so well over on FED2k against St. Hwi of the Burning Perschwanky of Proselytizing Love. I expect it will work about as well here, too.

[Leto Atreides II]

And yet, it hasn't been proven that the brain does generate awareness; so how would assuming that to be the case be any different than my assuming otherwise?

Postulating an extra metaphysical entity is not a favourable decision, and Occam's Razor says no.

Occam's Razor - "the simplest possible answer is most likely the correct one", or something along those lines? But if a radio fell into a primitive tribe's hands and they tried to explain the voices and music emanating from it, Occam's Razor might dictate that they necessarily assume it operates by magic, as they would have no concept of radio waves.

Personality, behaviour, functionality, memory... all things we can achieve in machines.

I think you would like to elaborate a bit more on how the creation of personality within a machine is accomplished.

Easy, by programming certain types of responses to certain situations. You could make two identical robots, and one might have friendly responses to stimuli, while the other might be programmed to be mean.

[Leto Atreides II]

Exactly. You can't just say, "well neither of us have been proved right or wrong, so we both have an equal liklihood of being right". You ask how is your assumption any different from mine? It is as different as different gets.

Here's an example:

I believe we are living in the Matrix (I don't really). I would like to see proof that this is not the case, I don't think there is any.

So by your logic, or at least the logic you've laid out so far - the above statement is a valid belief. There is no way to disprove it, just as there is no way to definitively disprove any kind of creator, but that doesn't make it valid, or make it a 50/50 situation that we might be in the real world, or might be in a simulation.

In that example, 'living in the Matrix' would at least have to make theoretical sense. And in a sense, we are living 'in the matrix', if by matrix one refers to the legal world of corporate identities.

Now, in arguments, the onus to provide proof is upon the claimant. But if I claim there are souls, and you claim there are none, and neither of us can provide proof, then the onus is on both of us. And since these are theories, not established facts, then there is no final proof either way yet, and we are simply stuck with our differing theories.

Your assumption that we have supernatural souls is not something I can disprove. Even when we eventually proove that the brain does account for all of "consciousness" people will still hang onto their belief in a soul. But that doesn't make it EQUALLY valid to assuming a simpler more scientific explanation.

Supernatural is perhaps a strong term to use here; I am thinking more in terms of a sublime natural energy.

I just stumbled across a book which may reflect my theory on the matter:

http://www.amazon.com/Self-Aware-Univer ... 0874777984

Amazon.com lets you read some of the pages, and so far it looks like this Amit Goswami fellow has ideas very similar to mine. He also looks like he's better at expressing them than I. I just might pick up this book so I can read it in its entirety.

[SandChigger]

Now, in arguments, the onus to provide proof is upon the claimant. But if I claim there are souls, and you claim there are none, and neither of us can provide proof, then the onus is on both of us.

Nice try, but no.

You claim there are souls. We say there is no evidence for them. The onus is on you.

So, you could spend your time trying to find some evidence, OR you could spend it kiss-assing up to the Herberts trying to get them to let you write your stories in the Dune universe.

Both endeavors will probably prove equally fruitful.

[Omphalos]

Now, in arguments, the onus to provide proof is upon the claimant. But if I claim there are souls, and you claim there are none, and neither of us can provide proof, then the onus is on both of us.

Nice try, but no.

You claim there are souls. We say there is no evidence for them. The onus is on you.

So, you could spend your time trying to find some evidence, OR you could spend it kiss-assing up to the Herberts trying to get them to let you write your stories in the Dune universe.

Both endeavors will probably prove equally fruitful.

Word. Parliamentary procedure and debate, dude. Get the books.

[MrFlibble]

Occam's Razor - "the simplest possible answer is most likely the correct one", or something along those lines? But if a radio fell into a primitive tribe's hands and they tried to explain the voices and music emanating from it, Occam's Razor might dictate that they necessarily assume it operates by magic, as they would have no concept of radio waves.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem), meaning that postulating an extra (metaphysical) entity is methodologically undesirable. And no, this principle does not apply to "primitive" tribes that do not practice scientific research as we understand it.

Personality, behaviour, functionality, memory... all things we can achieve in machines.

I think you would like to elaborate a bit more on how the creation of personality within a machine is accomplished.

Easy, by programming certain types of responses to certain situations. You could make two identical robots, and one might have friendly responses to stimuli, while the other might be programmed to be mean.

Wouldn't that be just a simulation of personality?

[A Thing of Eternity]

Exactly. You can't just say, "well neither of us have been proved right or wrong, so we both have an equal liklihood of being right". You ask how is your assumption any different from mine? It is as different as different gets.
Here's an example:
I believe we are living in the Matrix (I don't really). I would like to see proof that this is not the case, I don't think there is any.
So by your logic, or at least the logic you've laid out so far - the above statement is a valid belief. There is no way to disprove it, just as there is no way to definitively disprove any kind of creator, but that doesn't make it valid, or make it a 50/50 situation that we might be in the real world, or might be in a simulation.

In that example, 'living in the Matrix' would at least have to make theoretical sense. And in a sense, we are living 'in the matrix', if by matrix one refers to the legal world of corporate identities.

It makes perfect theoretical sense. Someone or something at some point decided it would be benificial to them in some way (maybe as a joke?) to place all human beings in a computer simulation of reality. We have no way to tell whether our reality is real, or whether it is a perfect simulation of reality.

That belief cannot be disproven, and by your logic below (we'll call it "logic") it is as valid as your belief that there are some "extra" energies/forces involved in our consciousness, dispite the fact that we both know that dispite the fact that we cannot disprove that we live in a simulation, we all should agree that it's far fetched and ridiculous.

Now, in arguments, the onus to provide proof is upon the claimant. But if I claim there are souls, and you claim there are none, and neither of us can provide proof, then the onus is on both of us. And since these are theories, not established facts, then there is no final proof either way yet, and we are simply stuck with our differing theories.

Yeah, Chig said it pretty clearly, you obviously don't understand how this works. You're making a claim, our only claim is that your claim has no evidence. I think you're confused here into thinking that us saying "nothing more than the physical brain is required to create consciousness" is a claim on par with your claim.

To refer to my example above, your claim is far-fetched (extremely), and is on par with the claim that we're all living in a computer simulation. Our claim is on par with "well, I can't disprove that we live in a simulation, but it's one of the most far fetched, unlikely, unnecessary ideas I can think of".

Because our statement is grounded in reality and yours is off in never-never-land, the onus of proof falls on you.

Your assumption that we have supernatural souls is not something I can disprove. Even when we eventually proove that the brain does account for all of "consciousness" people will still hang onto their belief in a soul. But that doesn't make it EQUALLY valid to assuming a simpler more scientific explanation.

Supernatural is perhaps a strong term to use here; I am thinking more in terms of a sublime natural energy.
I just stumbled across a book which may reflect my theory on the matter:
http://www.amazon.com/Self-Aware-Univer ... 0874777984
Amazon.com lets you read some of the pages, and so far it looks like this Amit Goswami fellow has ideas very similar to mine. He also looks like he's better at expressing them than I. I just might pick up this book so I can read it in its entirety.

I haven't read this particular book, but I glanced over what was there, I've seen stuff like this many times, it's not a far cry from supernaturalism, and I can't take it seriously. It's the same old junk we saw from the old religions phrased in ways that sound pleasant to the new "scientific" ear. Again, not having read this particular book, these "conciousness creates the material world" charlatans place the same self-loving importance on humans as all the old religions did.

It's not that some of these people don't occasionally make a valid point, it's just that these concepts are just one more baby step away from our old security blanket of religion. Sadly the steps remain very small, as the vast majority of people simply can't cope with the idea that we're here alone.

"Natural Sublime Energy" is about 1 tiny fraction of a joke more valid than "Supernatural Sublime Energy", the only difference is that the wording has been changed to sound more plausible. Both are unnecessary, both are un-measurable by current methods. It's just semantics at this point, and once a debate degenerates down to someone having to resort to weak semantics I generally grow bored.

[reverendmotherQ.]

Oh no. Magic and machines, god save me. Of course, we can't have a debate about consciousness without resorting to debating about the nature of it and if it requires such a thing as a soul in the mystical sense. God i wish I had mathematical talents, other wise i would go into computer engineering and find out some of this for my self. But for now I must be content with merely writing about them and research as much as possible.

Maybe i am simplifying the problem, going back to what someone described as simulation rather than true cognitive thinking, but I think the answer could lie in a closer examination and new discoveries on the wiring of the human brain. Until we can find how all of the parts of it work with one another and the body, I think any other assumption that we can generate true thinking machines is absurd.

[MrFlibble]

Maybe i am simplifying the problem, going back to what someone described as simulation rather than true cognitive thinking, but I think the answer could lie in a closer examination and new discoveries on the wiring of the human brain. Until we can find how all of the parts of it work with one another and the body, I think any other assumption that we can generate true thinking machines is absurd.

There's a lot of research in this field already (not enough to give definite answers yet though), and experimental attempts to build artificial neural networks based on the same principle as organic neural systems have been made. The principle of spreading activation is also derived from this kind of research, and is used in a variety of fields, for example, lexical semantics.

[reverendmotherQ.]

Maybe i am simplifying the problem, going back to what someone described as simulation rather than true cognitive thinking, but I think the answer could lie in a closer examination and new discoveries on the wiring of the human brain. Until we can find how all of the parts of it work with one another and the body, I think any other assumption that we can generate true thinking machines is absurd.

There's a lot of research in this field already (not enough to give definite answers yet though), and experimental attempts to build artificial neural networks based on the same principle as organic neural systems have been made. The principle of spreading activation is also derived from this kind of research, and is used in a variety of fields, for example, lexical semantics.

It consists of an interconnected group of artificial neurons and processes information using a connectionist approach to computation. In most cases an ANN is an adaptive system that changes its structure based on external or internal information that flows through the network during the learning phase. Modern neural networks are non-linear statistical data modeling tools. They are usually used to model complex relationships between inputs and outputs or to find patterns in data.

This is a absolutely fascinating. It feels as if this could really mean we are on the verge of something fundamentally altering on our ability to imbue a machine with cognitive processes. I feel a strong urge to change my major.

While a neural network does not have to be adaptive per se, its practical use comes with algorithms designed to alter the strength (weights) of the connections in the network to produce a desired signal flow.

For some reason I find this to be an exceptionally beautiful sentence.

[Leto Atreides II]

Now, in arguments, the onus to provide proof is upon the claimant. But if I claim there are souls, and you claim there are none, and neither of us can provide proof, then the onus is on both of us.

Nice try, but no.

You claim there are souls. We say there is no evidence for them. The onus is on you.

I put forward the theory that there may be souls.

You claim that the brain and sensory organs are somehow sufficient to produce awareness. I'd say the onus is on you to support that claim... unless you're willing to admit that it's just another theory.

[Leto Atreides II]

Easy, by programming certain types of responses to certain situations. You could make two identical robots, and one might have friendly responses to stimuli, while the other might be programmed to be mean.

Wouldn't that be just a simulation of personality?

No, because a personality is merely the manifestation of behaviour and attitude. A personality doesn't necessarily have to have a consciousness behind it; merely characteristics which one would identify as a personality.