Artificial Intelligence

At LiveScience: Will AI become conscious?

Spread the love
controls for AI/Pbroks13

From Subhash Kak at LiveScience:

As a professor of electrical engineering and computer science who works in machine learning and quantum theory, I can say that researchers are divided on whether these sorts of hyperaware machines will ever exist. There’s also debate about whether machines could or should be called “conscious” in the way we think of humans, and even some animals, as conscious. Some of the questions have to do with technology; others have to do with what consciousness actually is. More.

Indeed. First, we don’t know what consciousness is, yet it is an inextricable part of human life. Naturalists think it an illusion, which means everything else is too. That is not good news for science, which depends on realism.

Naturalism can, of course, survive as a state religion.

See also: Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

Nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.

Can science survive long in a post-modern world? It’s not clear.

How naturalism morphed into a state religion

Mock at your peril! Naturalism is a jealous fraud

14 Replies to “At LiveScience: Will AI become conscious?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    If consciousness comes along with intelligence, then all sorts of intelligent devices are already conscious. Thermostats, toilet ball valves, dryer vents, sump pumps, automatic transmissions. In fact these specific devices are CLOSER to lifelike than most computers because they function by analog feedback.

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    “Will AI become conscious?”

    Definitely yes!
    And I know exactly when:

    It will happen the following day after I’m granted the honorary citizenship of the principality of Montepeluo and become their first astronaut.

    That might not happen too soon, though.

    🙂

  3. 3
    Dionisio says:

    “Will AI become conscious?”

    Does this question relate to the hard problem too or just the easy one?

    🙂

  4. 4
    Dionisio says:

    Apparently some folks believe that consciousness is just quantum information (or something like that). If that’s the case, then conscious robots are just around the corner, aren’t they?

    🙂

  5. 5
    FourFaces says:

    There cannot be consciousness without both soul and body. The brain can only work with neuronal pulses. The 3D vista we think we see in front of us does not exist anywhere. It is a supernatural or non-physical phenomenon. Somehow the neuronal pulses arriving at the visual cortex from the retina are converted into a fabulous non-physical 3D vista. The only way to explain this is to conclude that something other than the brain is creating this 3D vista. That something is the soul.

    Why We Have a Supernatural Soul

    Why the Superintelligent Machine Is a Materialist Pipe Dream

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    David Chalmers: “I’d be happy if we got to the point where, say, in 50 or 100 years we at least have some candidate theories [of consciousness], serious, well-developed mathematical theories that are consistent with the data… But we’re not even close to that point yet.”
    [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/david-chalmers-thinks-the-hard-problem-is-really-hard/]

    There yet? 🙂

  7. 7
    Dionisio says:

    “I think there is some true story about why there is consciousness in the universe. There is some basic set of laws or something that explains it as well as it can be explained…. Whether we are going to be in a position to come up with that really great story is a further question.”
    “I’d be happy if we got to the point where, say, in 50 or 100 years we at least have some candidate theories, serious, well-developed mathematical theories that are consistent with the data… But we’re not even close to that point yet. I guess I’m inclined to think we can always make a lot of progress. Whether we get all the way is an open question.” – David Chalmers.

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/david-chalmers-thinks-the-hard-problem-is-really-hard/
    Hmm…

  8. 8
    J-Mac says:

    We know where the body was before being united with the soul, but where was the soul, before being united with the body? The body didn’t exist… did the soul?

  9. 9
    Origenes says:

    J-Mac

    Your questions remind me of this:

    My opinion of immortality is this:

    First. I live, and that of itself is infinitely wonderful.
    Second. There was a time when I was not, and after I was not, I was.
    Third. Now that I am, I may be again; and it is no more wonderful that I may be again, if I have been, than that I am, having once been nothing.
    [Ingersoll]

  10. 10
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    If you really want to understand quantum consciousness, and your Polish friend can’t explain it, try to research qualia…

    My break through happened when I realized that time (space-time)can be viewed or imagined in slices, just like slices of the traditional Polish zytni bread…

    Here is the main clue; we can only experience or be conscious of one moment of each time slice at the time… Once we move on to another slice of time, the previous one becomes more distant memory because we are experiencing or are conscious of current slice of time… and so on…

    We are ONLY conscious or a re aware of one the NOW SLICE OF TIME….
    The past slices of our conscious experience are memories… the future slices of our conscious experience are being baked….

  11. 11
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac @8:

    It was nowhere. It didn’t exist.
    It was created when we were created.
    It’s written. Read it yourself.

    No one really knows what exactly all this stuff is.

    No one. Do you get this now?

    David Chalmers happens to be an atheist who desperately seeks an explanation to the really hard problem he talks about.

    But at least he honestly admits that it could take a long while before there’s a better explanation than the pseudoscientific hogwash that is given these days as a potential candidate for explanation. And even then the mystery will remain, regardless of what any if us want to believe.

    We humans lack a good dose of humility to admire in awe what is awesome and admit our ignorance.

  12. 12
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac,

    Did you read Origenes’ comment @9?

  13. 13
    Dionisio says:

    J-Mac @10:

    What do you mean by “we”?

    Can you explain?

    Thanks.

  14. 14
    J-Mac says:

    Dionisio,

    I did read Origenes quote.

    Please disregard my comment @ 10.

Leave a Reply