is it possible for a computer to gain self awareness

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you define as "knowing".

What is it in a human that makes it "know" something.

How is it different to having a computer be able to answer the question what are you and return the information "computer", which is easily possible, I could code that in a couple minutes.

Conscious (human) observers understands what the computer is doing, not the computer.

And if it is more complex, then define what it is and prove that a computer program can not do it.

Of course materialists will dispute that . Like perpetual motionists they will argue extra cogs, wheels, pulleys, levers, water weights, slopes, etc. will one day magically pop it out. But theoretically neither has any basis from these levels of processing

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Mere" biological machines? Have you looked at the organs of any living thing? How about the Olympics? We're absolutely kickass biological machines.

It's irrelevant to the point I was making how "kickass" the machine is. The point being that if we are mere machines, then our lives have no purpose apart from the meaning we create for ourselves. And there are serious questions whether such a view is compatible with us being free agents. It is a spiritually bankrupt and reprehensible metaphysical hypothesis which is inconsistent with common sense, inconsistent with a philosophical analysis, and also inconsistent with the evidence suggesting anomalous cognition and "life after death".

Originally posted by Ian Wardell
It's irrelevant to the point I was making how "kickass" the machine is. The point being that if we are mere machines, then our lives have no purpose apart from the meaning we create for ourselves. And there are serious questions whether such a view is compatible with us being free agents. It is a spiritually bankrupt and reprehensible metaphysical hypothesis which is inconsistent with common sense, inconsistent with a philosophical analysis, and also inconsistent with the evidence suggesting anomalous cognition and "life after death".

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]whether I agree with specific points or not, your post just shows you have absolutly no idea what my overall point was.

I have, and had, no interest in your overall point. I felt it was important to correct your misunderstanding of optical "illusions".

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.

I suppose a creator could have made us so that we have the ability to visually see all things with perfect vision where ever in the Universe they might be. Is this an argument against a creator? Or a soul? Don't understand your point.

Originally posted by Ian Wardell
I have, and had, no interest in your overall point. I felt it was important to correct your misunderstanding of optical "illusions".

good show then...

INTELLIGENCE

YouTube video
YouTube video
YouTube video

Yes AI will become self aware in due time.

Neurons appear to be forever more efficient than wires. Until logic gates have six or eight "neurotransmitter" states, haha.... yeah, it ain't happening.

Bump

Originally posted by Quark_666
Neurons appear to be forever more efficient than wires. Until logic gates have six or eight "neurotransmitter" states, haha.... yeah, it ain't happening.

hahaha

funny, one of the things that lead people to discover the electro-chemical nature of neuronal communication was the fact that the system was less efficient than electrical wires were.

2.5 years later, and I still think my initial response to the OP is all the rationalization needed to answer the OP's question.

Originally posted by Digi
Sure. We're machines, albeit organic ones, and we have awareness.

But then not everyone thinks we are machines 😬

Until organic life can be built from scratch by technology.

Colossus, what do you mean by self-aware? What would a computer experience as its "self," and how would it be aware of that?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's just restating the claim.

What do you define as "knowing". What is it in a human that makes it "know" something. How is it different to having a computer be able to answer the question what are you and return the information "computer", which is easily possible, I could code that in a couple minutes.

And if it is more complex, then define what it is and prove that a computer program can not do it.

but i think this thought experiment highlights a difference between asking a computer a question and asking a human a question:

YouTube video

the computer doesn't have to think about the answer. either it's programmed to answer that question or it isn't, and when it does answer it it's just returning a pre-defined variable that it waits to be prompted for.

in contrast, a human might not know how to answer a question, (i.e. "what is the meaning of life"😉 but we can still think about what the answer might be without ever necessarily arriving to a conclusion.

i don't know any neuroscience (disclaimer), so this is purely my opinion, but i feel like the process of thinking is part of what makes us consider ourselves aware. or more specifically, the fact that we actually experience thinking, that it's not just a series of processes which allow us to arrive at an answer.

that is a very "rose-coloured" interpretation of what it means for people to "think" about things.

I think the main issue people have is that it really is impossible for us to think about how complex a machine with billions of parts might be.

Originally posted by Oliver North
that is a very "rose-coloured" interpretation of what it means for people to "think" about things.

I think the main issue people have is that it really is impossible for us to think about how complex a machine with billions of parts might be.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so of course i expected that, but could you be more specific?

the process of considering things we don't have a full answer to isn't really that complex, and at a neuronal level may simply be a matter of competing activation of different memory traces related to the problem.

In this way, it might operate in a very similar way to Watson, the Jeopardy playing computer.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's true, but i'm not saying computers aren't complex.

I was talking about the brain

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
But then not everyone thinks we are machines 😬

Sure. But I haven't heard a compelling reason why I'm wrong. Your definition of machine seem to be "computers or other metal things." We just have different kinds of parts. But the human body is essentially a complex machine.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Until organic life can be built from scratch by technology.

Why is this a prerequisite for my idea? What would it prove? We are pieced together in a way that allows for self-awareness. We're made of the same things as the rest of the universe. There's nothing that makes our composition different from the rest of the universe around us. To suppose that self-awareness couldn't occur or be created using other parts is ridiculous.

Animals can be self-aware too. Several are quite intelligent. It doesn't take "human" to achieve consciousness.

....

Eventually, provided we don't destroy ourselves, I'm absolutely sure self-awareness will be created in a machine and this debate will seem silly. After the Uncanny Valley backlash and philosophical question of rights, this argument will be as ridiculous as those in the middle ages talking about whether or not the Earth is the center of the universe.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the process of considering things we don't have a full answer to isn't really that complex, and at a neuronal level may simply be a matter of competing activation of different memory traces related to the problem.

In this way, it might operate in a very similar way to Watson, the Jeopardy playing computer.

i'm trying to consider what you're saying. the conceptual barrier i'm having trouble breaking through isn't necessarily rooted in the complexity of the processes involved. i'm not saying there's something so complex in processing the answers to vague questions that computers couldn't be designed to tackle them.

the main distinction i see is that when a person is asked a question, we reply with an answer that has some meaning to us. if you ask a person what they are and they say 'human', there's an intuitive concept attached to that response. with a computer like watson, if he answers that he's a computer, the word 'computer' is related to other fields in his database, but there's not any sort of conceptual meaning attached to any of them.

I was talking about the brain

Originally posted by red g jacks
the main distinction i see is that when a person is asked a question, we reply with an answer that has some meaning to us. if you ask a person what they are and they say 'human', there's an intuitive concept attached to that response. with a computer like watson, if he answers that he's a computer, the word 'computer' is related to other fields in his database, but there's not any sort of conceptual meaning attached to any of them.

the thing is, all of that, is based on memories and experiences that are activated when we are asked a question. Conceptual meaning is just a stored memory of an emotional or semantic component of stimuli.

When someone asks you a question, competing "traces", these memories that are stored, are activated, and the one that is activated most, the one that is most similar or related to the question, is activated most strongly, and therefore chosen.

It almost seems like you are saying there is some natural knowledge that people have that could never be programmed into a computer. People are not born knowing they are a human, it is something they need to learn before they can have any sort of reflection on it.

Additionally, you still seem to be arguing that there is something special about the way a brain processes data compared to a computer. The mechanism isn't the same, but information processing in humans is not this abstract thing that is free to consider all these things. It works on very mundane processes, and psychologists are able to manipulate the way people process data quite easily because there are biases the system produces. It is just an incomprehensibly complex machine.