Can AI eventually become 'self-aware'?

Yes. One could also wonder about animals that have various levels of self awareness/consciousness. Even the octopus is seen to have a level of consciousness that is pretty amazing.

If "soul" is how this is implemented, then are there levels of "soul functionality"? Could porpoises never evolve to have a fully capable "soul" for some reason? Is it possible that the human "soul" is still evolving as humans continue to evolve?

Surely "the soul does it" is a specific case of the more general "god did it" that gets used when a ready answer isn't available. Either we already know the answer or "god did it". The end.

In religion that is totally sufficient. No further exploration could possibly improve religious life or views.

 

Which I doubt.

 

I don't know about that.
to be honest, mankind has only scratched the surface regarding knowledge of natures secrets, and and any pretense to the contrary is arrogance, in my view.

 

I don't know why a clone wouldn't have a soul (assuming there is such a thing). It's still human.

 

You will remain confused about AI as long as you refuse to define 'life'...

 

I think AI could theoretically become self aware, but it would no longer be 'artificial' if it did.

 

The issue is not whether we have all the answers - we absolutely do not. Nobody thinks we have all the answers - certainly including on how the brain works. In particular, nobody would study science if the answers in fields of science were known! Think how ridiculously boring that would be.

But, your author went down the path of deciding up front that we have NONE of the answers - that we are totally ignorant of anything at all about how the brain works.

And, that contention is not only obviously false in general, but is false in terms of the cases your author put forward.

Again, not knowing all the answers is not the same as knowing none of the answers. Plus, when we don't know the answers it IS a legitimate approach (perhaps the only legitimate approach) to look to see what the answers might be.

 

We know that the cells in our bodies comprise six of the most common elements found in the universe and this applies across most of the spectrum of everything that meets the 7 basic requirements that constitute life.

Many of those SAME elements are in the machines that we construct so if the origin of these "old souls" is as you allege above then it is entirely possible that those machines have "old souls" too.

Just because you cannot recognize these "old souls" in machines does NOT mean that they do NOT exist using YOUR own SPECULATION process above.

 

I have had a personal experience where my long term memory shut down for a period of about 8 hours while I apparently continued to function and go about my life without any apparent outward indication that my long term memory was inactive. This is a medical condition that lasts up to 24 hours. It is rare and not an indication of any other brain malfunction.

From my perspective I have no recollection of what occurred during the period from the last thing that I can recall until my long term memory restarted again. Apparently my short term memory was functioning and my ability to communicate was not hampered in the least.

Curiously enough the first thing that I did afterwards was to research the topic because I wanted to find out what had just happened.

 

I'm no scientist, but isn't the difference between the two one of organic vs inorganic?

 

The question of "organic" vs "inorganic" in biology/chemistry is whether compounds of carbon and hydrongen are involved.

So, plastic (for example) is commonly made of organic material - thus being organic. A lot of pesticieds and herbicides are orgnic - 2,4-d, is an example, sold as Roundup.

The life we know is based on carbon compounds and is thus organic.

 

I'm sure glad that is back for you. Our memories are so precisious. I can't imagine having that happen.

It certainly is a demonstration of how there are separate capabilities in our brains - separate enouh that they can be impacted individually without other changes noticed.

 

YOU know stuff!!

How did YOUR knowledge somehow get exempted from your decision that everything humans have learned is no more than arrogance?

When someone somewhere in this world learns somthing, how do YOU decide it was pure arrogance?

Let's remember that you are stating here that what humans have learned over the centuries up to today is pure crap, no more than arrogance. You aren't claiming that some specific fact is wrong. You are claiming it is ALL no more than arrogance!!

In fact, how could it not be arrogant to suggest that everything EVERYONE but you has learned is total crap - no more than arrogance?

 

I Love This Crap!

I think, first, the clear definition of "Self-Aware" needs to be developed and agreed upon. I'm reasonably certain if I were to ask everyone who's responded on this thread to give their definition that there would be little agreement and a pretty wide range opinion.

Me? I don't know. Been thinking on the subject since the mid-80s but I got nothing. The technical, ethical, and sociological implication of a fixed answer are tremendous.

First question to answer is "when" we developed the capability of becoming self-aware?
The capability of self awareness is a biological, and evolutionary process. If the capability is not present, it cannot be taught and the mere presence of the capability is not proof of self-awareness.
Is a newborn baby "self aware?" How do we know? If not, then at what point does it become "self-aware?"
I think understanding how the capability was originally acquired and what triggers the activation is the place to start.

 

I agree with most of that, for sure.

I haven't brought it up, because imho if a human brain can do a particular job, then there is no way to prove that an artificial machine couldnt be built to carry out that job - regardless of wheter the task you want the brain to do is directing the vacuuming of your floor or becoming whatever we think of as self aware/conscious.

A brain is not infinite.

Providing everything a brain can do would be (will be) unbelievably difficult and not even necessarily an advisable objective. But, I don't see any proof of impossibilitly.

 

I didn't say what we know is crap. I think science thinks it knows a lot more than it really does, hence the 'scratch the surface' metaphor.
But, it's just an opinion. There was no 'but me' asserted anywhere.

 

The basic elements are ALL inorganic and since you used the term synthesize it is those inorganic elements that result in organic life.

The ability to grow is one of the definitions of life and we can observe non organic crystals "growing" in nature. That indicates that one of the basic functions of life depends upon non organic chemical reactions between elements and molecules.

So the argument could be made that the "soul" is just the electromagnetic force within the element that combines the electrons and protons and therefore it must exist in all matter regardless of whether or not it is classified as organic or inorganic.

The machine that achieves full AI/SI could be "living" using your own position as to what represents "life" at the most basic, AKA elemental, level.

 

These articles might help.

https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/children-five-stages-self-awareness-mirror-tests/

https://www.livescience.com/41398-baby-awareness.html

 

Science doesn’t think anything, I doesn’t think.

 

You eliminated huge sections of human knowledge by suggesting what humans other than yourself have learned is crap - and, with absolutely no evidence.

Then, you cemented the deal by switching to ad hom!!

So, no, I do not accept your excuse.

You can dispute particular points, but no discussion related to science can take place when the argument is "that section of everything humans think they know is crap" - and, then following up by suggesting THEY are the ones being arrogant.

 

I'm talkin' scientists, in general.

 

I didn't say that what they do know is crap, you did.

Now, When you say 'other than myself' you are putting words in my mouth.

Please stop doing that.

If someone asserts another is arrogant, you are saying, therefore, it's arrogant to accuse another by virtue of the accusation, which is a logical fallacy. That would be like saying if someone calls someone else a criminal, he or she must therefore be a criminal for accusing it. That makes no sense. It would be fair, of course, if someone accuses someone of being a criminal, to provide evidence.

However, I'm not accusing anyone of being a criminal. Accusing someone of being arrogant is just an opinion and I think if scientists, in general, believe they have mastered the universe so much that creating a machine that has consciousness like a human, i.e., endow a machine with life, is right around the corner ( or even possible, but that is my opinion) that is the zenith of arrogance, for those scientists don't understand what life is. Now, you would assume, therefore, that because I said that, that I must 'know' what life is, and therefore I'm arrogant. No, it doesn't (mean that I know what life is), and if you do that, you are making an assumption about me. Please don't make such an assumption without querying first. thank you. All I do say, however, that knowing what life is, i.e., knowing that the ultimate secret of the universe is, is unknowable, and i only say that because famous sages tell us this, more or less.

It's just an opinion. I also admitted that the thread should have been posted in the philosophy forum, not the science forum.

 

Perhaps at present....humans and AI share more similarities than differences...
in that computers do not have a choice but to "think" when their buttons are pushed...same as humans.
Computers can't as yet make themselves stop "computing"...nor can humans....
but they can surely have breakdowns if they are overworked and not taken care of...same as humans.
Take this thread for example....it's made up of thoughts....thoughts which have no other purpose
other than to encourage more thoughts. Creativity does not depend on thinking. If a person is not creative...
it is not because he doesn't know how to think..."it's because he doesn't know how to stop thinking."
Humans are addicted to thinking...they have no choice to stop their thinking
anymore than a machine can choose to stop working of it's own free will.

 

Instead of questioning if AI has the capability of becoming self-aware, perhaps a better question is if AI can 'display' self-awareness behavior? Can AI mimic human behavior without being human?

Since consciousness is the awareness of internal and external environments, and since computers and machines are aware of their environment, self-awareness is recognition of that consciousness. Since self-awareness does not require a biological origin, today's machines can be categorized as self-aware.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/03/13/are-machines-conscious/?sh=2abf31685b0e

 

Science only knows what it knows today...and this can be challenged and adjusted every day into the future...scientific knowledge is not static...