Why computers* will not become self aware.

Other than all of human history. If you look back in human history - every time we thought that something was non-materialistic (eg. lightning was thought to come from gods), later on, it turned out that it was materialistic, after all. The track record of using non-material explanations to describe things - is not very good at all...

But even if you want to ignore ALL of human history, the fact remains that there ISN'T any evidence to suggest that it's NOT materialistic. So how can you claim that it isn't materialistic, when there's no evidence for that?

 

I have played plenty of computers...

Here try this game....

Instead of trying to beat the computer, try to predict the computers next move, then do it over and over again... Don't try to beat the computer try to predict the computer. Manipulate the computers moves with your own moves...

 

Being totally random with moves throws the computer off because it really doesn't know the next appropriate move...

Also baiting a computer is a good way to beat it.....

I've used my queen so many times as a "pawn" it's not even funny and won.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't really understand what you mean..

 

It means that matter, of sufficient complexity, can become self-aware. In other words, self-awareness is simply a property of matter that is of sufficient complexity. We don't need special spirits or demons in order to achieve self-consciousness and self-awareness. All we need is matter that is organized in a certain way.

 

Oh I might also add, they did find souls with sensors by weighing bodies right before they died and after - there was a difference in weight..

Now I'm not trying to use that as evidence of a soul but it does contradict what you said...

- - - Updated - - -

How does this work?

People reject the concept of a soul yet are willing to believe this?

 

Rats can learn. You think they have souls?

And I've already told you why none of those examples support your contention.

Without going into why you're wrong about lightning, conscience has not "turned out" to be materialistic - which of course is why you're trying to divert the conversation towards phenomena which at least have a materialistic aspect at face value.

Obviously it's not a whit more problematic than claiming it's materialistic when there's no evidence for that. You're welcome.

 

Rats can be trained - big difference..

They use food to train rats...

A rat can be trained to kill itself by walking into a trap - which is why rat traps work..

 

Even if it were, they can learn without training.

ShazZAYam, got the throttle wiiiiiiide open on the crazy train, ain'tcha?

 

Depends on how you develop your beliefs. If you develop your beliefs based on intuition and superstition, then you will believe in a soul. If you develop your beliefs based on experimental data and neuroscience, then you will believe in materialism.

I don't now exactly how matter converts into consciousness (just like I don't know how a computer converts electricity into music). But it does.

 

No, you can not possibly defend the notion that the toys you play with demonstrate a limit on computational power.

There is no reason that a computer can not evaluate a position on a chess board better than can a human. All the factors that humans look for on a chess board are calculable.

 

Sheesh, who knew the crazy train had warp drive?

 

The only guy I know of who made a scientific claim to have done this was an absolute charlatan whose "work" in 1901 was immediately refuted - MacDougal, I think.

He used 6 patients and from those six he selected ONE that showed what he was looking for. Others were excluded since they did not show what he was looking for. The selection of one case that conformed to his hypothesis is an immediate invalidation of ANY claim that science was involved in any way.

Also, it was immediately pointed out that at death bodies heat up due to the absence of cooling from breathing, which can then result in weight loss due to sweating.

 

To a person who lives his life based on superstition and myth, science seems crazy (just like modern atomic theory seems like insane talk to a caveman). Are you telling me that solid objects are 99.99% empty space?? That's CRAZY!!!! Who would be stupid enough to believe that???

 

You would have no food or life without solar energy no matter what level of efficiency you believe it might be. Consider that solar energy is available to all humans for free all we need to do is tap into it and convert it for our needs. How efficient this process might be depends on how much time and money we invest to achieve improved efficiencies...

 

I understand that you view every response as an opportunity to parrot your threadbare atheist claptrap, but even to you it should be obvious I wasn't referring to science.

 

What do you do after you successfully anticipate the computer program's next move? Make an indifferent, irrelevant, or surprise move to try to throw it off? It doesn't work. The beast just keeps making the more worthy moves while you fail to improve your position. Only the weak, outdated programs and programs that have adjustable strength levels let you get away with such nonsense. Random moves throw it off because it doesn't know the next appropriate move? Ridiculous. It sees right through the entire position and checks a wide range of options.

That's not to say that they are flawless. They are sometimes a bit off in their evaluations and may tip the balance towards material advantage. They sometimes miss awesome lines of play that are a product of human genius.

You can't beat the programs that beat world class players, else you would rate as much notoriety as they do.

 

actually, by that logic, ALL energy is solar energy (including oil, gas, etc). Cause energy from oil ultimately comes from the sun as well.

 

Without solar energy the world would be different, cold and bare I presume, in which little to nothing exists on the surface...spend some time on the surface of Pluto. But in our discussions today it would be a stretch to say oil/gas/etc. are solar energy...

 

I set myself up to force the computer to make difficult decisions pretty much only a human could make.

Again, I don't look at it as trying to beat the computer, what I try to do is force the computer to make moves I want the computer to make.

In short I'm basically dictating what the computer does, because if I can do that I can win the game..

People generally get beat by computers because they approach the game against a computer all wrong...

 

I win because I'm the one dictating what the computer does, I'm forcing the computer to make moves based off my moves..

A computer can't see three steps ahead but they can stop you from thinking three steps ahead by destroying your strategy, the solution to that is to take pieces from the computer that will stop your strategy, and the only way to do that is to manipulate the computers moves based on your moves..

A computer cant win if it doesn't have the pieces to win...

 

I meant solar panels...

Solar energy is very effective - it's free. Problem is harnessing solar energy is the issue. It takes energy to manufacture, maintain, transport etc solar panels, so they make no sense - well unless you live off the grid...

Solar panels aren't very efficient either...

 

Anything is possible..http://blog.hasslberger.com/2010/03/turning_sand_into_fuel_silicon.html

Do you know how many watts of energy are required to 'manufacture, maintain, transport, etc.' a solar panel? Have you compared this with how many watts a single solar panel can provide over say 20 years?

The 'efficiency' issue is a moot point as long as there is a positive effect. Of course increasing the efficiency will simply increase the positive effect. And, you MUST calculate the reduction in fossil fuel energy costs and impacts to Earth as these fuels are displaced by solar energy...

 

I have no idea of how many watts it takes, nor would watts even be used to define the production of a solar panel..

In what universe does a solar panel last 20 years without repairs?

Lets also not forget a solar panels efficiency really relies on where one lives given certain regions get more sun than others...

I'm not opposed to solar panels but if anyone thinks they're "green" or "cost effective" they would be wrong and fooling themselves, just like they do with recycling...

 

My point is you have no data to support your position...only your opinions.

Maybe read these;

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels/

Don't care how many repairs a solar panel might require...whatever it is should be calculated in the cost per watt.

Cloudy days effect the efficiency of solar panels but so what?

Over the period of 20-25 years, whatever watts are produced by a solar panel, is the energy produced by solar more or less green than other fossil energies? Again, hopefully you have some data to support your answer...

 

No they're not my opinions ...

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mi...ay-finds-home-solar-panels-not-cost-effective

See I can do that too.

They're not efficient enough, they're not cost effective and they're not green.... They are useful for people living off the grid or that use little power.