The Present Singularity?

[Gary Childress]

I have a little problem (maybe a "personal" one)...

My computer is either conscious or it is not conscious or it is made to seem conscious by computer programmers and AI experts who are therefore lying.

If my computer is conscious then I cannot turn it off.

If my computer is not conscious then I can turn it off.

If my computer has been made to "seem" conscious by computer programmers and AI experts then I don't think I can trust the word of my computer nor those computer programmers and AI experts who are lying to me.

Therefore, someone else must tell me.

If someone else must tell me, that person surely does not know but may say either "yes" or "no", without knowing the answer themselves.

Or they may say, "I don't know".

Then I must decide for myself whether to commit "murder" against another "conscious" and therefore "living" organism. Or not.

Someone told me today that when computers can do everything a person can, people will become "redundant". Therefore I need a firm answer to this question:

If I turn off my computer and do not turn it on again, am I committing "murder"?

[Blaggard]

No is that firm enough?

We define life by some reasonable criteria which we hope covers most of it if not all of it, at least that which we know.

1) Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2) Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
3) Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.,[36]
4) Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5) Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6) Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7) Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[41][42] or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Life fits these criteria, computers as they stand atm clearly do not. Might they always? Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep?

It's debatable if a computer really does any of these without being told to do so by some outer programmer or force, nature does it in and of itself, it therefore has an inherent capability a computer does not. 5,6,7 are particularly problematic though.

[Gary Childress]

Thank you Blaggard.

[cladking]

This one's easy.

If the average human has an intelligence of 100 than a dog has one of 80.

A bird has one of 70 and a whale comes in at about 105. Dolphins are at only 90 but they really know how to live.

An oak tree is 60 and fungus is 45.

A dead toad is about 5 and a stone comes in at 2.

A computer is -20 and the net is -5.


Elephants are the most intelligent animal but they aren't as "clever" as humans.

[img]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAvJElL ... e=youtu.be[/img]

[Gary Childress]

Do you think computers are "conscious" cladking?

[Ginkgo]

At this stage of development computers are not conscious because computers do not have experiences. Only humans can have experiences. I can't imagine anyone in the AI industry wanting to claim that computers are conscious at the moment. The future is said to be a different story.

[Gary Childress]

At this stage of development computers are not conscious because computers do not have experiences. Only humans can have experiences. I can't imagine anyone in the AI industry wanting to claim that computers are conscious at the moment. The future is said to be a different story.

Personally I don't think a machine can be "conscious." Look at the Egyptian "proverbs" posted by cladking. Can a computer truly understand "proverbs" or why anyone would write them?

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


Keep your computer on.


You can become self-conscious. Your computer is becoming self-conscious much faster than we, individually, are able to do.


Keep your computer on.


Your life, your future, your past is there.



Keep your computer on.




.

[Ginkgo]

At this stage of development computers are not conscious because computers do not have experiences. Only humans can have experiences. I can't imagine anyone in the AI industry wanting to claim that computers are conscious at the moment. The future is said to be a different story.

Personally I don't think a machine can be "conscious." Look at the Egyptian "proverbs" posted by cladking. Can a computer truly understand "proverbs" or why anyone would write them?

I guess proverbs are the result of life experience and trying to make sense of this experience. Computers don't have life experiences so they don't compose proverbs.

[Gary Childress]

.


Keep your computer on.


You can become self-conscious. Your computer is becoming self-conscious much faster than we, individually, are able to do.


Keep your computer on.


Your life, your future, your past is there.



Keep your computer on.




.

Right now computers require the burning of fossil fuels to run. Computers also become "obsolete" at a point. Therefore never turning them off or throwing them away is "impractical".

My suspicion is that a computer is not a human being or "conscious". A human being should be respected and given dignity and life. A computer is a machine and not a human being. But programmers want us to think they are "human" and "conscious" for reasons I do not understand.

If computers are (or even will be conscious) then we are (or will be) by definition committing murder when we turn them off and throw then in a junk pile. That is a moral dilemma that no one should want to face.

[Ginkgo]

.


Keep your computer on.


You can become self-conscious. Your computer is becoming self-conscious much faster than we, individually, are able to do.


Keep your computer on.


Your life, your future, your past is there.



Keep your computer on.




.

Right now computers require the burning of fossil fuels to run. Computers also become "obsolete" at a point. Therefore never turning them off or throwing them away is "impractical".

My suspicion is that a computer is not a human being or "conscious". A human being should be respected and given dignity and life. A computer is a machine and not a human being. But programmers want us to think they are "human" and "conscious" for reasons I do not understand.

If computers are (or even will be conscious) then we are (or will be) by definition committing murder when we turn them off and throw then in a junk pile. That is a moral dilemma that no one should want to face.

We could argue that a computer is an appendage or extension of human consciousness. We have the ability access a massive information data base that dwarfs the human brain in terms of information available. When we access this information we create knowledge. That is to say, knowledge in terms of beliefs and expectations.

[Ginkgo]

.


Keep your computer on.


You can become self-conscious. Your computer is becoming self-conscious much faster than we, individually, are able to do.


Keep your computer on.


Your life, your future, your past is there.



Keep your computer on.




.

Right now computers require the burning of fossil fuels to run. Computers also become "obsolete" at a point. Therefore never turning them off or throwing them away is "impractical".

My suspicion is that a computer is not a human being or "conscious". A human being should be respected and given dignity and life. A computer is a machine and not a human being. But programmers want us to think they are "human" and "conscious" for reasons I do not understand.

If computers are (or even will be conscious) then we are (or will be) by definition committing murder when we turn them off and throw then in a junk pile. That is a moral dilemma that no one should want to face.

I think the reason some programmers may want to claim that computers are conscious is because of future expectations. The AI argument is that some time in the future when computers become more complex consciousness will emerge. The argument is the same as the physicalist explanation for human consciousness. In other words, because the brain is so complex it is little wonder that a thing called consciousness has emerged. On this basis there is no real difference between silicon chips and neurons. If we make these things complex enough consciousness will be the result.