Why computers* will not become self aware.

Why computers* will not become self aware.

Computers’ mean the silicon chip based devices we use today.



First lets clarify and correct a couple of common falsehood related to this threads title.

#1 The ‘mirror test’ once used to prove animals are self aware does not prove
metacognition, which refers to one's knowledge concerning one's own cognitive processes or anything related to them, thinking about thinking etc. I do not want to debate this because there are many articles on the web that cover this conclusion.
sources; reflections on the significance of animal self-awareness (L. Syd M Johnson) - See more at: http://kolber.typepad.com/ethics_la...of-animal-self-awareness-l-syd-m-johnson.html
"Does the Turing Test Demonstrate Intelligence or …
www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/turing-aaai-senior.pdf

#2 Turing test does/will not prove a machine possess metacognition ie what we think of as self-awareness. It only demonstrates that the information processing abilities of a computer. Again I don’t want to debate this. Again many recent papers confirm this. A good article is here, (I included the descriptive paragraph) ; "Does the Turing Test Demonstrate Intelligence Does the Turing Test Demonstrate Intelligence or Not? It…would surely satisfy Turing’s definition but does not reflect our usual intuitive concept of thinking. ..
www.eecs.harvard.edu/~shieber/Biblio/Papers/turing-aaai-senior.pdf


With that out of the way lets consider the real problems of computer self awareness and proving it. First scientists don’t know what causes self awareness. So it’s a bit difficult to build a machine to possess something we do not really understand. A thought, or thought is an intangible ‘thing’. Like God its difficult to understand what it really is. That is a huge thing to overcome. Maybe if more work could be done with real time brain imagery to tease out where the seat of consciousness sits in the brain, if it is located in the brain? Personally I subscribe to the theory of mind brain duality. In other words I am sure the brain and mind are not dependent on both having to exist and I feel they are not connected. The mind is independent of the brain IMO. If a connection exists it's tenuous and causal. Anyway lets say a brilliant engineer claims he built the worlds first self -aware (metacognitive) computer. It passes the mirror test and the Turing test. Still there is no way other than looking at the original programming system code to determine if someone wrote a program for the machine so it could mimic human behavior including falsely (or not) claiming its own self awareness. For arguments sake trying to prove a person is self aware is not possible using those same methods either! Really, how does anyone other than you know you are self aware? Shades of Philosophy 101! Students open your text books to chapter one; Epistemological solipsism. So to close I will say computers will continue their blazing abilities to process information at ever expanding exponential rates. Silicon does have its issues though. Engineers and computer scientists are approaching limits of silicon chip technology and problems such as the relativistic effects of switching etc are on the near horizon. Still I do dream of owning a true self aware HAL.


reva

 

AI, with self consciousness is just a sci fi fantasy. It is a belief held by the materialists, who believe consciousness is a by product of the brain, which is unnecessary, but there anyways.

Consciousness is more than an organic processor and an organic memory bank. These two things come forth from consciousness, they do not create consciousness. For when the brain is silent, when thought comes to a temporary end, there is still something there, running in the background that is this thing called consciousness. A machine can never have this. If the machine is not processing, there is nothing there in the background that is aware.

 

You may be correct One Mind…. frankly…. I hope that you are right…….. but I personally think that the research into NDE accounts where people meet with deceased pets implies that perhaps an android might just eventually become aware???!

One near death experiencer, Aurora Ray, has stated that there are 14 Elohim, seven male and seven female and all human souls can be traced back to one of these Elohim.

It is an excellent theory that could help to explain the ancient tradition of Lucifer - Iblis - Satan being asked to bow to Adam… and he refuses!

What do you think of the idea of animals perhaps having a "soul?"

http://www.near-death.com/animals.html
Near-Death Experiences with Deceased Pets and Animals

 

Well, if the computer has 'input' in the form of microphones and cameras, to satisfy the two main senses of being, seeing and hearing, then it will be able to observe the world. consciousness is object based, if you know a little bit about programming? if you were to program, as in hard wired instinct, that the computer should try to do something with these, like plug it's battery into the wall to recharge, or tell it something bad will happen eventually, it has a goal. so now, we have objects and incentive. this sounds like conscious to me, don't you think?

 

Computers and AI are not about 'self-consciousness'?

In any situation, with enough sensors, and the algorithms for every possible scenario, a computer can make decisions and initiate actions. For example, the driverless Google cars...are they perfect--heck no...will they improve over time--heck yes...it's only a matter of sensing and collecting more input and responding to that input to initiate actions. Now apply this same process to everything we do...

 

You might be the best programmer in the universe, but you understand nothing about human consciousness.

What it does not have is the ability to care whether it accomplishes that goal or not.

If you think Windows is happier running Firefox or Excel or whatever than it is outputting a BSOD, I can hardly wait to hear why.

That may well be the goal, but it won't be attained.

Will they ever give a damn if they screw up and cause a head-on collision? Hell no.

 

If the conscious of a living thing is not object based, as in shapes and sounds, leading to faces and words, then how does it work? the goal of the computer would be to get back to rest mode, as, it is heating up and with 'nerves' or sensors will know this is bad for it. the work load of some programs is more than others, and it wants to get back to a rest state, as we can hard wire that rest is good, like we have hard wired to eat when we are hungry.

 

Well, if a soul is equated with the ego, no, I don't think animals have souls. But if you are talking about a shared consciousness, that all life forms have, then yes. I think the consciousness that runs in the back ground is the same in all life forms, so all life has this shared consciousness. The brain which is a transceiver of that consciousness dictates how much of it is manifested in each life form. Perhaps a rat has a black and white tv, while humans have one in HD, stereo, and color. LOL.

So I see the brain is just a transceiver of a non local consciousness. And this non local consciousness is the ground of reality, with the material universe and its laws manifesting forth from it. This consciousness, is what man has given the name God. The Creator of the material universe. But it isn't anthropomorphic at all, it is beyond comprehension by the physical brain, which uses thought and images in order to gain understanding. This operation of thought can indeed get a limited understanding of the material universe, but can never understand the consciousness from which this material universe is manifested. Consciousness is like the eye that sees, yet cannot see itself. Consciousness, not ego consciousness, which is nothing more than images and thought stored in memory, can never grasp this non local consciousness from which thought and images, memory comes forth from. For this non local consciousness is not of time, nor can it be measured, so it's immeasurable. Yet it is the ground and foundation of the material universe.

And of course, this cannot ever be proven, no more than the idea that matter is the fundamental and ground of reality can be proven. For me, it just seems more likely and makes more sense that consciousness is the ground of reality, not matter. And that the universe and all things were potentialities in an infinite consciousness, and when they were manifested from consciousness, matter, space/time was born, with its laws, all arising together in one big bang, from nothingness, which is consciousness.

So then, when life dies, the non local consciousness is no longer being received by the organic transceiver, yet that non local consciousness being timeless doesn't go anywhere. Still where it was before the big bang happened, and before life was born. So in that respect there is no death, from the big picture. Just a transformation from a perceived local consciousness into the original non local consciousness. Bascially we all revert back to being God or whatever name suits you for the Nameless, the Timeless, the Immeasurable. So, everything is alright, and it will always be alright, nothing to fear at all.

Man can get the perfume of this non ego consciousness, and man has always had a way to sense it, to get its perfume. And that can only happen in genuine meditation, but not the meditation as sold by the east, with its methods, being goal oriented. It is absolutely possible for the mind to become silent, when thought is no longer moving, and all images are absent. For when the brain is not thinking, when thought is silent, the ego, the self, ceases to exist as an experienced thing. In that state of mind, there is something there, but one is only aware of it, when thought starts to operate again, and the brain tries to look back, to understand what went on, by using thought. But thought cannot understand it, nor touch it. Yet there is a perfume left of this consciousness, and it was a nothingness, but a very pregnant nothingness filled with a timeless energy. We can know, by using thought, that a state was there, but we cannot remember a thing about it. For the brain is not creating memory, when in that consciousness. But it is from this nothingness, this non local consciousness that ego consciousness, which is thought and memory, can manifest. It is even more real, than ego consciousness, and from this non ego consciousness, does the universe manifest itself. So it is very powerful, and makes all egos pale in comparison. It is the Source. And given the universe that manifested from it, this non local consciousness is super intelligent. And then some of us will even deny its possibility to exist. We would rather believe in chance, randomness and improbabilities. We would rather assume that matter is the only reality, and that somehow this thing called consciousness just happened, an accident, an unnecessary happening that is created by matter itself. And then we forget that this is nothing more than an assumption, for it is impossible to prove that this assumption is true. And so it becomes dogma, which we take as a hard fact. Scientific materialism is littered with dogmas, taken as facts, which are just assumptions.

 

Couldn't tell you. I can tell you, however, that it's not object based, unless the conscious being counts as an object himself. Take away my every material sensation, and I'll retain human consciousness at least as long as I'm alive and sane.

That is an illusion. It has no fear of death, because it's not alive, and therefore lacks consciousness of the possibility of death.

 

You do realize that without any sensations, your brain's neurons won't work and chemicals won't be able to 'talk?' this will be like, well, dying quickly. death? who said anything about death? i am talking about hard wiring a goal to shut down or idle - sorry for the confusion, it was my fault.

 

Who said anything about their sensations?

So make it incapacitation, or anything that puts it outside its design parameters, temporarily or otherwise. It has no fear of any of that, or of anything else, because it has no desire.

 

No offense, but you are like a monkey gawking at a calculator, we are trying to change the way things work so they work better, yes? well, we need to understand them then, of course. now, it needs sensations to be aware, correct? at least i am a monkey screwing around , but it won't break...

 

I'm not here to make anything work better. I'm here to bear witness to the fact that your demonstrated level of understanding of human consciousness makes monkeys look intelligent by comparison.

If by "it" you mean the computer, it should be obvious that no amount of sensory capability will ever make it self-aware.

 

Well, I would have agreed that computers wouldn't become actual AIs, but then I saw a lego robot being driven by a simulated worm brain in a news article the other day.

Now I think computer AI is inevitable.

[video=youtube_share;YWQnzylhgHc]http://youtu.be/YWQnzylhgHc[/video]

Read more: This Lego robot is controlled entirely by a worm’s brain.

 

Read my post...computers and AI are not about self-consciousness!

There is liability with an automobile, which is considered a deadly weapon, no matter if it has a driver or not...

 

I did. It began thus:

Emphases mine. Changed your mind since then?

 

OK, all you guys who are convinced computers will never be self aware.

Prove to me YOU are self aware. In fact, prove to me you are not machines yourselves. I think you're all branches of a program that scans the web looking for just this kind of thing, and/or periodically inserting this kind of thread to make us complacent as to the possibility. Prove me wrong.

The OP says that we don't really know what consciousness even IS, so how can he know that machines are NOT conscious, maybe even already ?

 

Define 'silent', being electro-chemical in action, when its electrically and chemically dead there is no consciousness possible then or after. If you mean 'sleep' by saying silent, then you'll find the distinction of conscious (awake) mind and subconscious (rest of brain) you'll find the subconscious continues when asleep. Or do you just mean 'brain death' where the brain has no electrical activity, for even this denies the possibility that the mechanism's are still viable given sufficient restorative action (such as blood flow etc) given the pooling of neurochemical's in vacuoles and possible epigenetic storage of 'state' in neurons.

So your premise seems weak, for a machine can layer processes which can become self referential and therefore in theory achieve some concept of selfhood at a level of complexity which exceeds its own concept of self awareness. I think AI is inevitable, and that human/animal awareness is just a byproduct of the body itself - though I don't discount the metaphysical/supernatural, just that I've seen on reason why its related to the human experience of awareness while alive or required to be alive.

 

'

You're just a program that scans the web looking for this kind of thing, why would humans prove themselves to a machine/program?

You're a good little machine, why don't you prove that machines are conscious?

 

Hi AU. I hope I didn't say science doesn't not know what consciousness is but rather science does not know exactly what causes consciousness. Also there is no agreement on what it is made of! Well I suppose the first statement might be somewhat correct, lol. In a way. For example does science know what a thought is made of? No there are hypothesis that pass for theory, but are not testable! However, science and medicine has discovered much on how our brain works. it’s a fantastic living machine that runs on a piece of toast and weighs a few pounds packed into a 2000cc mass. It can process more information supercomputers using a hundred thousand air conditioned watts while it uses um’ ten to twenty watts. Anyway per your quote its difficult to understand or build something we do not fully or only just understand! ... oops gotta go this post wasn't finished or edited will return, and thanks for every ones posts good stuff...

reva

 

The difference is it can not think about thinking. It has no internal dialog. Sorry for the brief answer but I am late to take Bogie to the vet ~

reva

 

EXACTLY! Not only does science not know how it works how does one test for it? As I pointed out it could mimic and then feign consciousness due to a program to do that. It of course could be detected by reading the program but that's the only way. If the computer in question is so advanced that every stimuli, environmental internal etc has a algorithm to tell the machine what to do in response to those events, still if that is all its doing its only mimicking consciousnesses. The machine does not know its doing these things. It can not think about thinking, it would not be sentient. Maybe that is what we should be calling that propriety because sentient is defined as self-awareness on a human-level or words to that effect. In other words the computer can not realize it is self aware. Of course what if we humans are running 'sentient programs' that an advanced ET installed in us? Lol (time for the twlite zone music)...Now I am really late for the vet!

reva

 

Self aware intelligence will not be programmed, not directly like normal computer programs are. It will be evolved, and it will learn and be shaped by the environment around it while "growing up". Like humans are.

 

You keep making a distinction between machine processing and brain processing which is the whole point of discussion. It's easy for a computer to process about its processing in the same way as we can think about thinking, just not to the extent yet.You have to look at the question of whether a computer of equivalent power to a brain would be sentient, and none of your arguments address that - your only saying our brain is more complex and capable then any machine therefore machines will never be as capable - which has no foundation.

 

I reckon it will have to be programmed to an extent (developed), where its sentient self begins is its birth and would be the moment it can contextualize memory effectively into its sentience 'now'. We'd have to have an understanding of our own brain's enough to make the determination when singularity actually was reached - which we do not have yet. It could be simply a certain level of a certain type of information processing which enables it to occur, and it could be in insects already for all we know.