Can machines be conscious?

[A Thing of Eternity]

...and Time gets slower as you go faster.

And slower the deeper into a gravity well that you are.

My favourite time dialation example is the one where two ships are headed towards eachother at a high % of light. Each captain has a video linkage with the other ship, and gets to watch the other person age. Captain A sees Captain B die of old age first. Captain B sees Captain A die of old age first.

Muahahaha! Melt brain, melt!

[Slugger]

Special relativity is the most interesting thing I've done so far this year. And its only the specific case of inertial frames of reference at a constant velocity. Quantum mechanics however... Well, that's next semester...

The math behind special relativity is fascinating. Taking modern physics now? The deeper you go the more it becomes almost meta-physics/philosophy. Gotta love the Copenhagen interpretation, though!

(I'll be taking quantum mechanics too next semester.)

[Lundse]

I think our misunderstanding boils down to our belief of laws, as I'm a trained mathematician(to undergraduate Hons degree level at least) and a budding (very-) amateur physicist. I believe that the laws of the universe should be at there base logical in nature and that illogical laws to nature would necessitate the existence of something external imposing its will on the universe, be that God or minds external the the brain.

How can a law be "illogical"? How do you judge something like that?

I think we should adopt laws that fit best overall, remain simple, etc. And I think I do get what you're saying; differentiating meat and silicon seems arbitrary - but so did differentiating different isotopes of uranium a hundred years ago. Still, if the two things act alike (machine and man), you could make a case that we should ascribe them the same characteristics, including consciousness. And you could say that doing anything else is only reasonable with some metaphysical explanation (eg. god) - but not that if there is a factual difference, this means god actually exists.

The whole ballgame changes, however, when you do not buy the whole physicalist starting point. Then, the possible answers to the solipsistic challenge are wholly different - and can include social, historical or etiological explanations.

[The_Kat]

...and Time gets slower as you go faster.

Actually, this one makes sense if time is another dimension. Imagine you can only see along the x-axis. You observe a rod of length l. Then if somehow the rod was moved so that it extended into both the y-axis and the x-axis all you would be able to see is the x-component of the rod, x, where x< l (i.e. x = (l^2 - y^2)^1/2 from Pythagoras theorem. )

Similarly, if an object moves faster and it appears to get shorter, (Lorentz contraction) which is due to the way it is observed with light at a constant velocity (I think) then it can be said that the spatial extension is being lost into the temporal extension.

That is, you lose length but gain time.

Special relativity is the most interesting thing I've done so far this year. And its only the specific case of inertial frames of reference at a constant velocity. Quantum mechanics however... Well, that's next semester...

The best thought experiment I heard to help understanding of this is that c is the fastest you can travel in space-time, so very basically the velocity you move through space added to your velocity through time cannot exceeed c. Normally you are moving very slow in space so move fast in time. When you increase your speed in space you decrease your speed in time to keep within the c maximum in space-time.

[SadisticCynic]

...and Time gets slower as you go faster.

Actually, this one makes sense if time is another dimension. Imagine you can only see along the x-axis. You observe a rod of length l. Then if somehow the rod was moved so that it extended into both the y-axis and the x-axis all you would be able to see is the x-component of the rod, x, where x< l (i.e. x = (l^2 - y^2)^1/2 from Pythagoras theorem. )

Similarly, if an object moves faster and it appears to get shorter, (Lorentz contraction) which is due to the way it is observed with light at a constant velocity (I think) then it can be said that the spatial extension is being lost into the temporal extension.

That is, you lose length but gain time.

Special relativity is the most interesting thing I've done so far this year. And its only the specific case of inertial frames of reference at a constant velocity. Quantum mechanics however... Well, that's next semester...

The best thought experiment I heard to help understanding of this is that c is the fastest you can travel in space-time, so very basically the velocity you move through space added to your velocity through time cannot exceeed c. Normally you are moving very slow in space so move fast in time. When you increase your speed in space you decrease your speed in time to keep within the c maximum in space-time.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

1. All laws of physics are the same for all observers.
2. The speed of light in vacuo is constant.

As to

"apparently god hadn't thought we were ready to know about his other creations"

why would he talk about dinosaurs etc? In Genesis 1:1 the verse goes from the beginning of the universe to the start of the formation of the Earth. He also doesn't mention pulsars, quarks, Andromeda and so on. What would be the point? It holds no relation to the theme of the Bible, which is humanity and their relationship with Jehovah and ultimately the outworking of whatever it is he wants to do.

[Can't believe I'm letting myself get drawn into this.]

Finally, I realised I implied QM wasn't interesting. I meant to imply it was very confusing; that's what I get from posting way too late.

[Freakzilla]

why would he talk about dinosaurs etc? In Genesis 1:1 the verse goes from the beginning of the universe to the start of the formation of the Earth. He also doesn't mention pulsars, quarks, Andromeda and so on. What would be the point? It holds no relation to the theme of the Bible, which is humanity and their relationship with Jehovah and ultimately the outworking of whatever it is he wants to do.

The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.

In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regardless, I think genesis is a parable for mans move from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. Being cast out of the Garden.

[Idahopotato]

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regardless, I think genesis is a parable for mans move from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. Being cast out of the Garden.

Because he is God and can do anything. So he creates light, but then realizes that man will one day wonder where light comes from so he has to create a source of the light. Besides, he had to create light first. Ever try to build anything with the lights off?

[Freakzilla]

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regardless, I think genesis is a parable for mans move from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. Being cast out of the Garden.

Because he is God and can do anything. So he creates light, but then realizes that man will one day wonder where light comes from so he has to create a source of the light. Besides, he had to create light first. Ever try to build anything with the lights off?

I can put an M16 together in the dark.

[SadisticCynic]

In Genesis 1:1, the earth and "heaven" are created together "in the beginning," whereas according to current estimates, the earth and universe are about 4.6 and 13.7 billion years old, respectively.

First of all Gen 1:1 does not say that the Earth and everything else was formed at the same time. It merely states that they were created. In fact verse 2 goes on to say that “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste...” So the earth was not created immediately but in a continual process, something that is highlighted throughout the account. Something to remember is that the verb translated create after Genesis 1:1 is in most if not all cases in the imperfect state, suggesting continuous action i.e. some translations ignore this because of the difficulty in reading it correctly in English e.g. “and light proceeded to come to be...”

In Genesis, the earth is created (1:1) before light (1:3), sun and stars (1:16); birds and whales (1:21) before reptiles and insects (1:24); and flowering plants (1:11) before any animals (1:20). The order of events known from science is in each case just the opposite.

As to the earth being created before light, this again relies on the premise of the first argument, that the earth and everything else were created instantaneously. But as I said, verse 2 indicates a formless earth at this time. So light first occurs because the cloud of hydrogen etc, that is to form the Sun condenses, heats up and gives out light (really simple version ). Thus light actually comes into being before the earth is ‘formed’ as predicted by science.

As for earth being created before the sun and stars, you must go to the original language (see, some of us do try Sandchigger ). You will find that when light is created the Hebrew word used for light is ‘ohr which indicates light in a general sense or not specifically from a source. In verse 14 the word changes to ma.’ohr which indicates a source (ma. is the definite article in Hebrew). The word for “create” (ba.ra) changes to the word for “make” (a.sah) in verse 16. So it would seem that for awhile the light could not be seen as directly coming from the Sun (and the Moon). But when they could be seen, they were not created at that point but presumably were in existence and simply were not observable as such. This ties in with photosynthetic life coming into being before the luminaries are seen and before animal life. As far as I know, originally it is required that photosynthetic life comes before solely aerobic respirating life due to an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But I am a little foggy on the science of OOL. But because carbon dioxide is prevalent and is white, it is logical that the luminaries cannot be seen until this is removed.

When you say whales I take it you refer to “great sea monsters” which in a footnote is also translated “great reptiles”. I don’t really know what else to say about that one.
In terms of birds before reptiles the common conception of birds descending from reptiles has been challenged recently:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092055.htm

As to flowering plants coming before animals I haven’t thought about that yet, but I simply do not know enough of the science behind it yet. Personally I do not rule out evolution below the level of phylum, although I grow less sceptical as you go down the scale. It could be that the basic phyla could be created (not at the same time) and allowed to diversify, I don’t know.

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

I think I answered some of this above. Separating of light and darkness is achieved as we know by the rotation of the earth on its axis, something that would be occurring right from the start of the formation of the earth due to conservation of angular momentum.

Because the word day in Hebrew does not literally indicate 24 hours it is not possible to be dogmatic about the length of the creative days. For instance in the verse mentioned Jehovah calls the light Day and the darkness Night, yet these do not last 24 hours. Similar examples can be found throughout the Bible and indeed in English today e.g. in my father’s day. Especially considering the seventh day has not ended. Evening and morning are indicative of the purpose of that “day” being completed.
Phew! That was longer than expected. I don’t expect people to agree with me etc, I just wanted to make a point. Oh well, I should back off now I guess.

[Also, I say all this in friendly debate, in case I come off as attacking or anything ]

[Idahopotato]

(1:3-5, 14-19) "Let there be light"
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regardless, I think genesis is a parable for mans move from hunter-gatherers to agriculture. Being cast out of the Garden.

Because he is God and can do anything. So he creates light, but then realizes that man will one day wonder where light comes from so he has to create a source of the light. Besides, he had to create light first. Ever try to build anything with the lights off?

I can put an M16 together in the dark.

Touche. I never tried it in the dark, just blindfolded lol. I can do it in less than 15 seconds blindfolded without removing the firing pin, otherwise under 30 seconds.

[A Thing of Eternity]

Edited to shorten everything in last post - sorry!

One of my all time favourite quotes concerning Genisis came to me from my religions of the west prof in Vancouver. He says that he loves to just randomly ask people about their religions and see how open they are. So one day he's in a cab and notices the driver is dressed as a Sikh. He asks what the creation story is in the Sikh religion, and the driver happily tells him. The long and short of the story, if anyone hasn't heard it, is this: God (monotheist religion if anyone is unfamiliar) closed his eyes, then opened them, and there was all the universe.

My prof says, wow, that's very beautiful, and how very different from the Jewish/Christian creation.

The driver laughs, and says "Yeah, what took your god so long?!".

Made me smile.

[Freakzilla]

This is my favorite creation story, The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov:

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Freakzilla]

This is my favorite creation story, The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov:

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Funny how that got us back on topic.

[A Thing of Eternity]

I find it funny that people try to disprove the historical accuracy of Genisis through examining specific parts. Why not just point out that there are TWO completely contradictory creation stories, one with man coming first, then animals, then woman, and one with animals being first and then man and women being created simultainiously?

Obviously both stories had been passed down verbally for hundreds of years in two ormore different groups of Hebrews, and when Ezra finally was the person to write down all/most the important Hebrew stories he simply could not figure out which was older, or which was more valid, so he wrote them both down and let people guess.

My guess would be that he was of the opinion that messages contained in the stories were more important than whether they were true or not, and by including both he was hinting at this opinion.

[SandChigger]

I can put an M16 together in the dark.

Touche. I never tried it in the dark, just blindfolded lol. I can do it in less than 15 seconds blindfolded without removing the firing pin, otherwise under 30 seconds.

At night, in the dark, I can ... feel the hair on my nipples growing.

Anyone feeling queasy or light-headed yet?

[trang]

Blindfolded I can load the magazine and put it in the well, put it to my shoulder, move and shoot in a 360 degree circle! might even be able to knock the hairs off SC's nips!!

not blindfolded, I can put a round thru the chest of the target at 50, 100, 200, 300 and 500 meters, sitting, standing, kneeling and in prone positions!!

[SandChigger]

might even be able to knock the hairs off SC's nips!!

Kewl! Sounds like a party!

[lotek]

might even be able to knock the hairs off SC's nips!!

Kewl! Sounds like a party!

now getting your nipple hairs blown by the blast of an M16?
That's my idea of a party...


... not!


And if machines could be conscious I know of a dictating device that would be looking for payback for all the crap spilled into it

[Freakzilla]

...not blindfolded, I can put a round thru the chest of the target at 50, 100, 200, 300 and 500 meters, sitting, standing, kneeling and in prone positions!!

500m? Crazy Jarhead... just call for an artillery or air strike. That'll take their nipple hairs off.

[lotek]

the revenge of the machines:


now that would be a nice prezzie for Jabecca wouldn't it?

(sorry chig still need to install my photofiltre for decent demotivators)

[TheDukester]

But ... but ... why wouldn't the first speaker just record his voice "for later transcription"?

[lotek]

But ... but ... why wouldn't the first speaker just record his voice "for later transcription"?

well if i read correctly it would because he's... blind...

yeah i know it doesn't make sense...

edit: unless you'd want to have a blind stenographer for some reason

[Omphalos]

the revenge of the machines:


now that would be a nice prezzie for Jabecca wouldn't it?

(sorry chig still need to install my photofiltre for decent demotivators)

There was a time when many court reporters used this thing.

[lotek]

Wow...

now that must have been some sight!!

[SandChigger]

Yes ... especially during lunch.

The horror, the horror...