Why computers* will not become self aware.

Your first quote is just proving that we don't really know what is "alive" and what is not. Many of our ancestors believed everything was alive, and our ancestors were far from stupid.

It's true that we don't know what good is. Perhaps it is time we found out, and I think computers could help with that.

 

If you think you can program yourself, you're kidding yourself. I use the latter expression loosely, as strictly speaking, you can't do that either.

 

I was going to wait to post this, but I feel it's time.

I have to give credit where it's due. It was a nice group of Extraterrestrials who gave me the idea.

I only had to experience death twice for it.

 

Of course I can, I can learn and I can choose what I want to learn... I can self educate, a computer cant. A computer does what it is told to do.

People manipulate all kinds of things, a computer cant do that - they're not capable of logic..

 

That's programming your brain, not your self, which ideally is what does the choosing.

 

The definition of LIFE is animate matter that can reproduce on it's own either via mitosis, asexually or sexually.

A Virus does not meet this criteria.

AboveAlpha

 

Yeah, you ever hear of gene therapy? or perhaps designer babies?

Hell, some whack job nut in 2017 is going to allow a surgeon to perform a head transplant on him.

Those are ideas AI could never think of...

 

Never said anything about free energy?? Nothing is free!

Needing a battery is not a 'problem'? Storage batteries are used in millions of applications and work just fine.

Solar energy can provide 100% of one's energy needs or be used to supplement a power system. Solar energy can power a house but cannot power a steel mill. But within the steel mill, solar energy can provide power to some percentage of the business.

Robots, depending on their tasks, can recharge themselves, take a break to recharge, or have another robot stand in for one that is off-line.

The solution to cars is to eliminate cars...

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/techn...igence-that-won’t-destroy-us/ar-BBnLLgU

 

What does any of that have to do with what I said?

 

I think all you are saying is that there needs to be a starter set. But, that is not a real limitation.

Computers come with a starter set that keeps growing as we create more sophisticated machines. That starter set would need to get large, but I do not see that as having a limit other than simple availability of materials.

 

You haven't got a clue about what I'm saying. Now do me a big favor and get lost.

 

You have expressed no justification for thinking that computers will never become selfaware.

 

What prevents a computer from doing that?

That is, what is it that a computer eould need to do that, but that we can never give it?

Or, for another try at the same question, what is missing that can not possibly be supplied - ever?

 

not really. there is no evidence to suggest that feelings and conscience are not materialistic phenomena.

 

Yeah, really.

The question, of course, is whether there is any evidence to suggest it IS a materilalistic phenomenon...

...and there isn't.

 

HEY!!!!

There is no need for that!!!

You and anyone else can disagree.....BUT DON'T MAKE THINGS PERSONAL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

What do you mean by this^^?

 

The component of our brain that scientists cant find and are looking for so they can create a computer that can learn...

I think it's a soul...

What makes our personalities different? nature, nurture, intelligence? ...

When computers can have conversations like we're having now then I will certainly check my ideas...

 

Solar energy isn't efficient at all....

- - - Updated - - -

You said humans cant program themselves - I have stated numerous ways biologically and neurologically they can.

 

Science has never found a soul with all their sensors.

And, I know of nothing that would require more than brains - including brains manufactured, although we are a long ways from duplicating the assive computing ability of a human brain.


Computers can beat the best humans at chess. Computers can hold conversations that are sophisticated enough that a human can not detect whether he/she is talking to a computer or a human - as in the "Turing Test".

 

Computers can beat humans at chess because computers are programmed to respond to likely moves.... You want to beat a computer at chess make unlikely moves, play a sloppy game - you will win...

The computer isn't "thinking" the computer is reacting.....

It's not like a computer can be three steps ahead of you in chess, and the reason why computers can beat the best players is because the best players really beat themselves... You can't approach a game of chess with a computer like you're playing a person - in reality you're playing yourself ..

When you play a computer make a move no chess player would ever make - that is how you beat a computer..

A computer really cant have a strategy - it's just a machine making knee jerk reactions to your strategy...

 

A chess computer doesn't need a strategy. It computes possible sequences, evaluates the outcomes, and sorts out the best results.

Have you tried your unorthodox moves against a chess program such as Fritz or Shredder? I'll bet they make mince meat out of your strategy. If you succeeded, then show us the recorded moves of the actual game.

 

Even rather rudimentary computer programs for chess are looking ahead, evaluating positions and determining next moves from that. Strong players both human and computer know opening sequences, etc., but wandering off the reservation with nonsense opening moves is problematic for computer and human.

In their contests of nearly 20 years ago, Gary Kasparov wasn't going to beat Deep Blue by making stupid moves. In the 1997 Game 3 Kasparov tried a rarely used opening, but that led to a draw.

Today's top chess programs are far stronger.

Human objectives are broader, more varied and more abstract. And, computers would have to be far more powerful to approximate the startling power of the human brain. But, it isn't magic.

 

Meaning that feelings and consciousness are nothing more than higher order properties of matter.