Transcendence

[HexHammer]

Yes. But you see, maybe I was too much engaged with the plot of the movie, so that I wasn't able to express well. I mean, as I have written in my previous posts, this was not a typical machine/computer, this was a "computer", so hardware, but uploaded with a consciousness of a "real" person. However, as MF says in the movie, always a machine. Now, the heart of the matter, is not how to understand if we're talking to a machine or to a human being (Turing test), but it is how to demonstrate, in any way, to a thinking machine of having a consciousness of our own. I don't know if I was able to explain, but it's a bit different. Anyway, it's a beautiful film, the fact is that I like science fiction, but this one is involved with philosophical issues too, that I know everyone on this wonderful forum like, as I do.

Ah!
I see I've poked at the wrong things then.

A machine shouldn't theoretically have limitations like humans do, we often have faulty memory in what color things have and where things are placed, we are prone to false memories where a machine should in theory have "photographic memory", that is 1 of the big differences that would give away a machine from human.

So that leaves us with 2 scenarios, if the programmer has implemented such faulty details into the program allowing the program-AI having human faults.
OR! If the programmer has eradicated such human faults.

And!

Did the programmer allow irrational and psychopathic behavior? Or was such things weeded out in the programming? What programmer would allow an AI to have psychopathic behavior?

[David Handeye]

Ah!
I see I've poked at the wrong things then.

Oh no, absolutely, you have written very interesting things, like many others in this thread.

[HexHammer]

A machine shouldn't theoretically have limitations like humans do, we often have faulty memory in what color things have and where things are placed, we are prone to false memories where a machine should in theory have "photographic memory", that is 1 of the big differences that would give away a machine from human.

So that leaves us with 2 scenarios, if the programmer has implemented such faulty details into the program allowing the program-AI having human faults.
OR! If the programmer has eradicated such human faults.

And!

Did the programmer allow irrational and psychopathic behavior? Or was such things weeded out in the programming? What programmer would allow an AI to have psychopathic behavior?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at here? ..mr David Handeye

[David Handeye]

Just a moment please...

[David Handeye]

A machine shouldn't theoretically have limitations like humans do, we often have faulty memory in what color things have and where things are placed, we are prone to false memories where a machine should in theory have "photographic memory", that is 1 of the big differences that would give away a machine from human.

So that leaves us with 2 scenarios, if the programmer has implemented such faulty details into the program allowing the program-AI having human faults.
OR! If the programmer has eradicated such human faults.

And!

Did the programmer allow irrational and psychopathic behavior? Or was such things weeded out in the programming? What programmer would allow an AI to have psychopathic behavior?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at here? ..mr David Handeye

Ok, I see your point, logically perfect. A machine could never be able of false memories, on the other hand no programmer would allow faulty memory when programming it. That's a good point.
In the plot the program and the programmer were one thing. I mean, it was able to learn while running, while computing. 'Cause it was kept online, so that it could get any information from the net. Learning any second billions of informations. Actually it was a monster, and this was the thought and the feeling of ours spectators. Maybe this was the intention of the director, to focus the attention of the public on this aspect, an artificial intelligence able to reproduce itself perpetually. At the end of the story, humans' fear, in the film, was that the final thought of the machine was that humans were the cancer of this world, a virus to be destroyed. As it was able to destroy humanity, thanks to nano-technology applied by itself, finally humans decided to introduce a worldwide virus in the web. Humanity came back to the stone age, no web, no banks, no money, stock exchange, electricity, petrol, etc. I think one of the purpose of the director, was to show that without internet and computers, actually we are lost. I think.

[HexHammer]

Ups!!!!!!!!!! I just reread the thread, and see I've made some potential sidesteps, to clear the matter I must ask:

how to demonstrate, in any way, to a thinking machine of having a consciousness of our own.

"Of it's own" you are very unclear what you mean.

To demonstrate to the machine that humans has a concousness of our own?

[David Handeye]

Yes, the machine asked MF to prove that him (MF) had a consciousness.

[HexHammer]

Yes, the machine asked MF to prove that him (MF) had a consciousness.

I believe with our todays understanding of "consciousness" we can only prove it as of such with brain scans, where the brain with high light different areas according to what the subject perceives, through different sensory input, that be our sense. Thereby we can discuss what we have experienced and thereby prove it that way.

(hope I hit the nail on the head this time)

[David Handeye]

You hit, yes. In fact you were the only one in this thread focusing on neurological proofs.

[HexHammer]

you were the only one in this thread focusing on neurological proofs.

Tragicly yes, why I call others cozy chatters, they lack basic knowledge.

[Advocate]

[quote="David Handeye" post_id=201539 time=1430997028 user_id=10750]
I have just watched Transcendence, the movie. I don't know if you have, there's a point in which Morgan Freeman asks the machine -can you prove to have a consciousness?
And the machine replies -and you? Could you prove to have a consciousness?
Morgan Freeman could not reply the machine. Why?
[/quote]

A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If a thing acts conscious we have no reason to expect or treat it any other way.

[Advocate]

[quote="David Handeye" post_id=201617 time=1431021356 user_id=10750]
[quote="thedoc"]Morgan Freeman asked the wrong question, there is no answer to the question he asked. The proper question is, "Do you believe that you are conscious?"[/quote]
So, I would like to know why there is no answer to "that" question...? I mean, if we, as humanity, are not able to prove of having a consciousness, what are we able to do? How can we distinguish from vegetables?
[/quote]

There are both physical and metaphorical differences. A plant can't move around. An animal doesn't (so far as we can tell) have an advanced theory of mind (aka consciousness). A plant's avoid/approach mechanism is known as biology; an animal's is known as sentience, or feelings; ours is known as meaning. This shows how emergence works.. different levels of metaphor for different levels of complexity.

[Advocate]

[quote="David Handeye" post_id=201932 time=1431191999 user_id=10750]
[quote="HexHammer"][quote="David Handeye"]Hi Hex! Come on, give me your opinion about my OP. How would you demonstrate to a machine of having consciousness?[/quote]Any one with minimum of knowledge of neurology, would know that some intelligences can work independently or worth together.

What most confuses about consciousness, is that they think it's binary, but when it scales. They don't think of machines able to have low kind of awareness.

Specially with new brain chips from IBM I don't doubt machines able to have awareness on low lvl, when they can respond to outside stimuli.
Scientists have even condensed a primitive worm brain into a robot.

Many refuses the idea of awareness, because machines can't improvise, but ..so can't so many humans, and that is besides the point of awareness.

Unfortunately too many will reject awareness out of ignorance, when they haven't read about the topic, this really makes me miss admission to philosophy, so we don't have to deal with fools and ignorant, ..then I'm a foolish person and ignorant about so many things.[/quote]
Thank you, Hex. Very interesting. I could almost assume that improvisation is a great intuition of your point of view. Once I read of multiple electric switches in electrical circuits, such as chips or synaptic links, if I don't remember bad I read that humans may think in parallel mode, while every kind of machine may compute only step by step, even if at the speed of light, impossible to humans. Improvisation is a good point, but perhaps machine could reply that its random mode of computing could be a way to improvise, I guess.
Anyway, I agree and enjoyed all that you wrote.
[/quote]

Time isn't parallel, so all processing is serial.