PDA

View Full Version : machines ARE learning how to feel


unknown
05-22-2005, 11:28 PM
We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could possibly become conscious. There are quite a lot of us now who believe it's entirely feasible.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may232005/foreign1811242005522.asp

read the article

The Silent One
05-24-2005, 08:33 PM
Cool. Sad for them, though....

Russell Nash
08-25-2009, 09:37 PM
We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could possibly become conscious. There are quite a lot of us now who believe it's entirely feasible.http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may232005/foreign1811242005522.asp

read the article

Cool. Sad for them, though....

The above mentioned link is dead. That makes me think whether or not some threads shouldn't be ultimately deleted. Unless, this link is reactivated, this thread is purposeless.

This also makes me think if, someday, by someone designing a machine that becomes conscious of itself, he would have also designed boredom and stupidity for computers as well. Or are these computers going to be only intelligent? By imitating human consciousness scientists should also imitate everything that is part of us: like suicide, for example. Which one is going to be the first intelligent machine that kills itself?

unknown
08-26-2009, 12:36 AM
hm. darn. I'm sure something I found interesting four years ago would still interest me today. oh well I'm convinced google is going to turn into skynet. just watch...

alogos
08-26-2009, 06:19 PM
The above mentioned link is dead. That makes me think whether or not some threads shouldn't be ultimately deleted. Unless, this link is reactivated, this thread is purposeless.

The internet Archive has an interesting feature called the way back machine, it sends out bots to record websites, and then archives them. you can put a website on there and if the archives bots found something on a specific date it will record it. It is meant as a way of seeing what news was prevalent half a dozen years ago.

anyways using this feature I was able to find this link (http://web.archive.org/web/20050525015016/http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may232005/foreign1811242005522.asp):

so you can read the article although its not very rich in specifics.

This also makes me think if, someday, by someone designing a machine that becomes conscious of itself, he would have also designed boredom and stupidity for computers as well. Or are these computers going to be only intelligent? By imitating human consciousness scientists should also imitate everything that is part of us: like suicide, for example. Which one is going to be the first intelligent machine that kills itself?

Unsurprisingly, I don't imagine that human exceptionalism is very popular round these parts, but the article even touches upon my own immediate question -and that is we have not even come to a philosophically satisfactory explanation of human consciousness, much less a scientifically based clear cut distinction of what exactly make human consciousness unique. I have a hard enough time believing someone like Carl Sagan who just assumes that the consciousness of the sort unique to the human species not only exists elsewhere in the universe but is actually surpassed. I see the same pressumption in this Dr. Pearson. He doesn't even understand human consciousness, just computing systems, but he simply believes that once the capacity equals the capability of the human mind that its mysteries will somehow be apparent.

My own prediction, in answer to your question and refuting Dr. Pearson is that we will not create conscious computers, just incredibly efficient computers that imitate human consciousness.

And being the lonely creatures that we are we will project our own human consciousness on these things.

Russell Nash
08-26-2009, 07:08 PM
The internet Archive has an interesting feature called the way back machine, it sends out bots to record websites, and then archives them. you can put a website on there and if the archives bots found something on a specific date it will record it. It is meant as a way of seeing what news was prevalent half a dozen years ago.

anyways using this feature I was able to find this link (http://web.archive.org/web/20050525015016/http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/may232005/foreign1811242005522.asp):

so you can read the article although its not very rich in specifics.

Excellent!!!! :) You learn something new everyday.

Russell Nash
08-26-2009, 07:31 PM
My own prediction, in answer to your question and refuting Dr. Pearson is that we will not create conscious computers, just incredibly efficient computers that imitate human consciousness.

When I was 17 (1984) I heard that either Korchnoi or Karpov (a Russian chess player for sure) beat a computer playing chess. I was so much impressed that, a few years later, I decided to study Engineering to understand how this mystery was possible. The first software I played with, I don't remember which one right now, in 1989 or 1990, I was again impressed at how easy it was for me to beat a computer, playing at a good level, and I wasn't Korchnoi. Later on, I asked myself, whether or not it was right to say: "I beat a computer playing chess". Why not? One doesn't really beat a computer, but a software designed by a company to play chess, under the supervision of grand masters. But one doesn't beat a computer; you can beat another person, but not a computer. I used to say: "I beat this software (Chessmaster 3000, at that time, for example), run by this computer (model)." The computer only runs the software, but doesn't play chess. Of course, it's much easier to say: "I beat the computer playing chess" but it's false. If you beat or not a specific software playing chess doesn't mean much. Or you compete against a calculator to find out the square root of 3 with 10 decimals. Of course, a calculator always wins, and so what? A calculator is a machine only.

We don't have any idea of what consciousness is, whether it exists or not. And, if it exists, whether or not it is responsible for any rational activity in the brain. It could be a very basic electromagnetic field of some kind, and nothing else. Unfortunately, consciousness is related to an ancient word "soul" and most religious people would tell you that souls exists indeed, although nobody knows where, or how it interacts with the brain, or whether it is a result of brain activity, or acquired from God.

However, if someone designs a machine that thinks and feels as we do, boredom and stupidity, very human indeed, must be present.

The idea that someday by designing smaller integrated circuits, all of sudden, out of nowhere, we will have human consciousness, is typical of American films (bread and circus), Schwarzenegger 's films, for example. See Terminator. We have a machine that not only thinks (as humans do) but also knows what Good and Evil are. How can a machine know it, if the most brilliant human minds still don't know? Or perhaps somebody knows what Good and Evil are? I remember Captain Kirk (The Return of the Archons) asking a machine: "you are not Landru, you are a machine, answer the question." Machines are mechanisms, only, that's it. Then, can a machine ever feel? Obvious answer: NO.