quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, I totally thought up an outline for a P-Zombie that's practically real AI. I'm not even kidding. I briefly described it to Bardock. There's a very real reason why something like my outline will not be programmed: it would take an incredible amount of people and time to do. I estimated over 100 billion lines of code (almost an arbitrary number but I used an existing "AI" program as a jumping board to estimate my full program size) required to write out the entirely of the program. The program would still have to be "cleaned" and "tested" to such an extant that it's pretty much impossible to complete without, literally, hundreds of thousands of programmers/debuggers.


Basically, it covers the very same items you mentioned and many others.


We have "technology" now to write and execute a program like that, with no problem. The problem is amassing the data for all of the objects (I created 5 tiers of objects: Hyper objects, Super Objects, Macro Objects, Sub-Objects, and Micro Objects (these are words I made up but it's easy to see it's a pyramid)) and creating those objects to work together, correctly. The method by which they interact would be very simple but the objects themselves are what have to be "figured out" first.


I COULD write it all out, one day. It's much too complicated and lengthy to type out so I prefer to speak about in detail instead of type it out.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
You did not mention that to me, I think, I'd be interested to hear it though.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by dadudemon
I did. I talked about a human-like AI system with you maybe a year or two ago. It might have been around the time we first started talking IRL to each other.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]yes



even if that is true, every aspect of what is called "self-awareness" has some correlate to neurological activity. If there is a soul, it has little to do with awareness, and would not prevent computers from being self aware

quote: (post)

Originally posted by inimalist
Because of this, there are some weird experiments (optical illusions being the simplest example) where our awareness is terribly ineffecient.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Ian Wardell
Further update. I can't even upload an image or link to an image either! This is just absolutely useless. Can't see me making any more entries in this place! If people are interested just go and search for the checker-shadow illusion!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by inimalist
what a shame, we lost a real top notch contributer here guys!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Ian Wardell
We're all interested in seeking to answer questions such as whether we are mere sophisticated biological machines, or whether we are souls, and a whole host of other questions!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Ian Wardell
You could scarcely be more wrong. So called optical "illusions" help to illustrate that what we see is actually an implicit theory about the external world. I have a blog entry here (link deleted) which might be of interest.

If it were not for optical "illusions" we would see squares A and B as being the same colour. Indeed if we were unable to perceive optical illusions we wouldn't see reality anything like as we see it now -- we wouldn't even be able to see that the world is 3D! We wouldn't be able to negotiate our environment. Indeed, although we might have perfect vision, we really wouldn't be able to see all that terribly well.

Update: OK I've just found that I can't post a link to my blog as of yet!

OK on my blog I talk about this so-called "illusion"

Further update. I can't even upload an image or link to an image either! This is just absolutely useless. Can't see me making any more entries in this place! If people are interested just go and search for the checker-shadow illusion!

And to quote my blog:

I'm sure that all of us are astounded that the squares A and B are actually the same colour. It is the shadow cast over B by the cylinder which makes us think otherwise. What this suggests is a quite incredible illusion.

However I think there is a pervasive naivety about the nature of perception. Most of us doubtless feel that we see the external world directly. But we emphatically do not.

Consider a red rose. We think of a red rose as being the same colour throughout the day. However the light from the Sun reaching the Earth varies throughout the day. When the Sun is low in the sky, lots of blue light gets scattered away since the sunlight has to travel through a greater quantity of air. So if we were to passively see colours "as they really are", then the colour of our red rose would change throughout the day. Indeed the colour of all objects would change throughout the day. But in fact our rose seems to stay pretty much the same colour throughout the daylight hours. Why is this?

The answer lies in the fact that we do not in fact simply passively see what is out there. Rather the brain performs certain operations on the data coming through our senses and presents it to our consciousness in a form that we can make sense of. Everything we ever see is in fact a hypothesis about how the world is. Thus we have an implicit theory about the external world that it contains objects which have specific intrinsic colours. Hence the brain will perform those operations which ensure that objects do indeed appear to be the same colour throughout daylight hours.

This applies not just to colours, but everything we perceive through our 5 senses. In a way then everything we ever perceive is an illusion. But I think this is misleading.

Let's consider the "illusion" above again. If this were a real 3D object and we were to approach it and view it from various angles, then we would see that squares A and B are very different colours. Indeed their intrinsic colours would be precisely as we perceive them in the illusion above.

But in that case what justifies us in labelling it as an illusion? If this were a real object that we are seeing, then squares A and B are very different colours. Our senses are not deceiving us. Indeed if someone claimed to see the squares as being precisely the same colour, then it is doubtful that he could proficiently visually apprehend his environment.

This is not to say we never perceive illusions. Sometimes we seem to see something, but which on closer inspection turns out to be something else entirely. Or sometimes what we seem to visually see is not consistent with our other senses.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]If we have a soul that is responsible for our perception of the world, it is inherently flawed, in such a way that shows faulty design from a creator.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Parapsychology
What makes you think the only alernative belief to materialism is some sort of religious belief?

The topic is about whether computer can become aware, not whether a God created it.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ushomefree
Computers do not know that they are computers.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If we could build a quantum computer, then it could become self-aware. With the technology we have now, no way.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a silly thing to say. What's the definition of "know"?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ushomefree
Symmetric Chaos-

Robots have already been developed in Japan (and I'm sure other parts of the world) that mimic human behavior, but these "human behaviors," are completely artificial. These robots, merely respond to stimulus dictated by the programs written for them - nothing conscience about that! Don't you understand, that machines, computers and robots only "behave" a certain way, due to programs/software written for them? That's not consciousness. How do you make the leap?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't see how this is necessarily different than humans. All emotions are a response to stimulus, unless you tend to start laughing or crying for no reason.

quote:

And what is it that makes you think *people* really have feelings? How do you prove that another person is feeling sad if you throw out the appearance of sadness? [/B]

quote: (post)

Originally posted by ushomefree
I would venture and say "no." Nothing physical is capable of consciousness. Yes, technology (code) exists to program machines and computers to act upon stimulus/algorithms, but they will never understand why. Machines and computers simply do the bidding (without question). Never will a machine or computer ask for a vacation, speak of personal rights (dignity) and/or feel grief over the death of a loved one, for example in the truest sense.

"Why should a bunch of atoms have thinking ability? Why should I, even as I write now, be able to reflect on what I am doing and why should you, even as you read now, be able to ponder my points, agreeing or disagreeing, with pleasure or pain, deciding to refute me or deciding that I am just not worth the effort? No one, certainly not the Darwinian as such, seems to have any answer to this.... The point is that there is no scientific answer." -Darwinist philosopher, Michael Ruse

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Categorically untrue. I'm terrible with computers and even I can write a VB program that can ask for vacation time and demand that it has personal rights.

quote:

This is a better challenge but it raises the question of how you know that *people* feel grief or any other emotion. If the answer is that they cry or act sad or anything along those lines then a computer/robot can absolutely be built that would convince your it felt grief (but probably not in the next 50 years). [/B]

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Parapsychology
He is quite correct. Computers do not consciously understand anything.