EagerForTruth wrote:So I guess while when it comes to using quantum physics as a way to prove concretely that the physical arrangement of a computer system cannot become conscious, I might hafta side with blaggard on much more general interpretations of the ideas. If the brain and our nervous system came together to produce our consciousness - what ever the source - I can't rule out the possibility of highly complex organized communication and information processing systems (meaning A.I. programs) reaching that level...call me less versed or that I like to keep concepts free of technical clutter, but in many things in existence the old adage stays true - the whole is more than the sum of it's parts. My last thought is for Hex, and though I enjoy my consciousness, I would certainly not call our human experience of reality that far past simple awareness itself, but awareness does expand itself (hopefully) once achieved I'd expect the only question is at what rate and to what purpose....
Sorry to say but you don't know what you are talking about. It seems purely spekulative instead of based on factual knowledge.
Insects are aware, yes? We have computers that far surpasses insects in intellect, there it is!
I'm sorry, but I haven't heard anything that factually proves anything about where "consciousness" comes from. I can however from my own experience and the things I can say I know from the reality around me the awareness IS self-sustaining and self-generating. To the ant comparison I'll simply ask if you can prove to me that over their 200 million year existence as a species group that their own awareness has not grown or changed (adapted, or evolved even?) Ours as humans has a whole different set of hardware and has grown, changed and evolved at it's pace in it's way. As for the real heart of the question by comparison I can't prove A.I. has true awareness - and I do read into the subject generally, from the experts, the jury is still out. If I had to guess I'd say it's not there yet but will be. How it grows and evolves according to it's own specific form. I may not know quantum physics enough to provide contradictory technically proof to disprove other people's technical proof. But I have common sense, logic, and intuition - and enough sense to not try and overcomplicate a line or thought until it actually becomes much less clear. To go off the details of this line of thought and explain the direction of my thinking it's that evolution - which in the context of just this sentence I will define as the innate tendency for the components of existence to organize themselves into increasingly complex ways - is one of the very prime components of reality itself.
Those are completely irrelevant factors of conciousness, you don't even understand what you are parroting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment ... _Organisms
Here is a terrible experiment from the russians, showing how they revive a dog head by pumping blood into the head. The dog is very aware, but not really living up to those irrelevant criteria which you are pointing out.
Lol seriously, first of all I don't parrot anything, as a newbie on here I can assure you all my ideas about reality are quite self-generated from the things I can logically say to myself are true. For me to try and explain to you that I think consciousness may share one universal quality, it is inherently for any one being a singular quality true only to itself and then by varying degrees from other beings sharing in it's nature.
In fact it was only to you're very incomplete response that shares awareness between us and insects yet denies it from computers - by which you mean intrinsically ever.
Not to mention you're still claiming factual awareness and i'm not quite sure about what? You simple applied awareness and consciousness where you think it exists and denied it where you don't. And don't get me into what actual consciousness is, as far as we humans are concerned I'd like to point out until someone proves something concrete on the subject - which is why we are still debating it after philosophers have all through the years - is that consciousness is tied to a certain awareness level between a being and it's surroundings. Do you know where the line for that level is? after all, even protozoa and paramecium present certain qualities in which they are reacting to what's around them - when the two get close enough, there is an intentional interaction.
Then there's the dog thing which wow, between both of our arguments it seems by far to hold the least weight. Before ANYTHING else, it's from the soviets in 1940....not a time or place where all the claimed "science" was science and a plethora of duped events occurred. Even if I accede that point it's well known that a being, in this case represented by the brain of the dog, can return to life after short periods of death. The likelihood is intensely low but it too is somewhere in the realm of possibilities. Personally I go with it's a dupe - if you read a few of the links they say exactly that. Either way you certainly do seem to have a strange way of thinking when something is proved and something is not. Not to mention I haven't claimed to have proved a single thing....your penchant for taking your viewpoints and substituting them for REAL fact, rather than YOUR fact isn't a very effective tool. Remember I certainly claim no proof that A.I. will go conscious, but I do think I have a pretty good logical handle on what I'd more call it's....probability. Still haven't seen a thing to prove either way.
My interpretation of your conclusion and hence opinion is a rather arbitrary valuation of different ways things are either aware or have intellect. You are certainly right about computers for the most part still, their "intelligence" is what I rather consider still just really clever programming tricks combined with massive processing abilities. I don't however believe they are inherently restricted from consciousness.
EagerForTruth wrote:all my ideas about reality are quite self-generated from the things I can logically say to myself are true. For me to try and explain to you that I think consciousness may share one universal quality, it is inherently for any one being a singular quality true only to itself and then by varying degrees from other beings sharing in it's nature.
LOL? Yearh, all religious people think logically and comes to all their "perfect" conclusions just as you.
Hmmmm, religious? not at all, that's where many dislike how I define consciousness, I don't think it comes from God - or from magical "nonlocal" (which is rather gibberish to me) I think consciousness is an inherent quality that expresses itself in different forms through the many highly complex ways that realities energy organizes itself (back to the evolution as one of the prime qualities to reality idea)
Again though, and i'm not offended, but it's quite amazing you'll continue to think my thought processes don't come from myself? I'm certainly not the one who essentially is making the entirety of your argument "I don't agree with you, you're wrong ,I'm right" Indeed, the way I apply reasoning, the only thing you have claimed that computers will never be conscious, isn't something i'd dare to actually tell you with certainty that you're wrong about - I just happen to think it's more likely myself.
Gee....how disappointing...although in all your random 10 word denials it's rather hard to identify if it was an analogy or not - from how you arbitrarily decide which parts of my ideas are glaring examples of how I can't reason and lack some kind of intelligence or insight, why wouldn't I equally take it to mean you assumed I was religious as well. I will say my thinking has a rather spiritual and intuitive bent to it as well, maybe you thought it was because I was religious. I dunno, the random denial and denunciations do make it rather difficult to determine your actual meaning other than to say "no" --rather rudely if I might add...
EagerForTruth wrote:Gee....how disappointing...although in all your random 10 word denials it's rather hard to identify if it was an analogy or not - from how you arbitrarily decide which parts of my ideas are glaring examples of how I can't reason and lack some kind of intelligence or insight, why wouldn't I equally take it to mean you assumed I was religious as well. I will say my thinking has a rather spiritual and intuitive bent to it as well, maybe you thought it was because I was religious. I dunno, the random denial and denunciations do make it rather difficult to determine your actual meaning other than to say "no" --rather rudely if I might add...
It's good to see that your education is progressing.
lmao, as long as I am existing that is a true statement, as I see it one of the way part of us can die is whenever we stop learning - to learn and grow is to live
