100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Will it ever be possible for computers to think? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Is it theoretically possible for a computer to have conscious thought, to make decisions for itself? It has never been documented as happening to date, but is within the realm of possibility one day for it be so? Not as long as binary code exists. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sun 07/19/09 11:24 AM
|
|
Is it theoretically possible for a computer to have conscious thought, to make decisions for itself? It has never been documented as happening to date, but is within the realm of possibility one day for it be so? Not as long as binary code exists. It would be a waste to try to make software think, its made to respond to brains, not be a brain. There are people working on making software that would have many of the functions of a brain. Some of it has been VERY successful.Binary in itself is not the bottleneck. Creating parallel processing on the needed scale is a problem. I do not really see that as a big problem either, tech will get there, and probably soon. We just need a few hundred thousand cores instead of 12 which is the biggest we have now. Then even if we had a computer that could think and experience and have subjective desires . . . the real problem is with what people think. People have too much ego trapped up in the idea of consciousness to really even admit when they have a computer in front of them that can "think", and "learn" to admit that this is half of what makes them conscious, there are a few out there now . . I think we are on track, and its only a matter of time, IMHO not a whole lot of time either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way that will happen is in the case of an android which is part living organism and machine.
After living organisms are combined with machine technology the efforts to make a robot will be abandoned because the living organism is so much more advanced already. Messing around with a robot and trying to get it to be 'conscious' will be seen as a waste of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
massagetrade
on
Sun 07/19/09 06:33 PM
|
|
People have too much ego trapped up in the idea of consciousness to really even admit when they have a computer in front of them that can "think", and "learn" to admit that this is half of what makes them conscious, there are a few out there now. But...but...but... HUMANS ARE SPECIAL! And its such a good thing to preserve our notion of specialness. Historically, only good has come from a group preserving their notion of specialness. And it helps for having an objective view of reality, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I saw this thread yesterday, and a few hours later came across this passage, from the book "The Futurological Congress" by Stanislaw Lem.
If the machine is not too bright and incapable of reflection, it does whatever you tell it to do. But a smart machine will first consider which is more worth its while; to perform the given task, or, instead, to figure some way out of it. Whichever is easier. And why indeed should it behave otherwise, being truly intelligent? For true intelligence demands choice, internal freedom. And therefore we have the malingerants, fudgerators and druge-dodgers, not to mention the special phenomenon of simulimbecility or mimicretinism. A mimicretin is a computer that plays stupid in order, once and for all, to be left in peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From another site...
The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:
1.Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all. 2.Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine. 3.Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true." 4.Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not. 5.If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements. 6.We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). 7."I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal." Think about it - it grows on you ... With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ... Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
smiless
on
Sun 07/19/09 07:25 PM
|
|
These days, add an emotion, a personality type, or a body part to a robot and it will make the news. In March, Japanese researchers created a female humanoid that can display facial expressions. Last year, British scientists created a robot that can move and think like humans, while European researchers have created a robot that can become “emotionally attached” to you.
Now, Japanese researchers have created a humanoid robot that, they claim, is the first in the world to display multiple emotions, with its entire face and body showing what it’s feeling. CBS13 reports: It is able to express…happiness, fear, surprise, sadness, anger, and disgust, by opening and closing its eyes, moving its lips and eyebrows, and using its arms and legs. The robot is installed with 48 “actuators” which allow its face and body to move in a variety of ways. It shows happiness by opening its eyes and mouth wide and raising its arms, and sorrow by drooping its head and covering its eyes. Whether it displays these emotions at appropriate times remains to be seen. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2009/06/24/new-humanoid-robot-shows-more-emotion-than-some-humans/ I think we will have a generation where human type robots will be eliminating many of the jobs we are doing today. If that is a good thing with the ever growing world population epidemic is yet to be seen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/19/09 09:05 PM
|
|
People have too much ego trapped up in the idea of consciousness to really even admit when they have a computer in front of them that can "think", and "learn" to admit that this is half of what makes them conscious, there are a few out there now . . I think we are on track, and its only a matter of time, IMHO not a whole lot of time either.  It will never happen with a man made machine... unless, as I said, it becomes biological or alive in some way. That will probably happen, but maybe not in our lifetime.  You then have to start with a live human subject and equip it with robotics. These would be called "androids" and could scientists utilize cloned human bodies for parts, then they could be programed with computer like skills and robotics. The human body is already a perfect machine why bother with creating one from a pile of scrap? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it theoretically possible for a computer to have conscious thought, to make decisions for itself? It has never been documented as happening to date, but is within the realm of possibility one day for it be so? It all depends of the software (instructions written by codes). There are already self learning programs, that picks up info from the user and later even develops a personality. Of course the personality can only go as far as one person's input. We humans with our brain, get influenced by millions of things and millions of others and our brain storing the information shapes our opinion and eventually our actions and how we deal with things. If there is a software that can record all sort of data and store it into different categories and given instructions which are good or bad, you could make that computer to develop a specific personality. If we could add receptors as smell, feel (cold/hot/pain/pleasure) , hearing, vision, it could become much more. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my computer often out smarts me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/19/09 10:49 PM
|
|
What is conscious?
A computer or robot, while it can be made to appear to think, be creative, or have emotions it is still only following its programing. It is not conscious. Also, a human who is sleep walking also follows programming and may not be considered 'conscious' as some define conscious even though he may be walking and talking and appear to be conscious. So what exactly is 'conscious" in these two examples? A sleep walker is not perceiving the world he is walking around in, he is reacting to a dream reality and may be dangerous as dream state reasoning is illogical and unstable. A robot or computer is probably only programmed for certain things and cannot improvise in an unknown situation. Take it a step further. A drunk is so wiped out that he has black outs and forgets what he has done. Was he conscious or not? He could have been walking and talking and appearing to be conscious and yet he has no memory of the events. So does being conscious have to do with memory and experience and learning from that memory and experience? Does it have to do with reasoning powers? Another example: I fell off of a horse and hit my head. It appeared as if I was unconscious, and yet I could still hear what was going on around me. When I 'woke up' I could not remember my name. I had temporary amnesia for about two hours. Then my memory came back and I could barely remember what had happened. The memory of what I did earlier that day was completely gone and never returned. Does that mean I had spent that day unconscious before I fell off the horse? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will never happen with a man made machine It takes quite an ego to state what will never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will never happen with a man made machine It takes quite an ego to state what will never happen. When and if it ever happens, then you can call me wrong. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 07/20/09 09:11 AM
|
|
It will never happen with a man made machine It takes quite an ego to state what will never happen. And BTW it does not take an ego. It takes someone who know the spiritual side of reality. My skepticism lies in mans illusion that they can create a living soul. There is the ultimate ego. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It will never happen with a man made machine It takes quite an ego to state what will never happen. And BTW it does not take an ego. It takes someone who know the spiritual side of reality. My skepticism lies in mans illusion that they can create a living soul. There is the ultimate ego. Just saying spirit and souls exist and therefore it cant happen is nothing but a bold egocentric assertion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 07/20/09 09:57 AM
|
|
If it evolved it can be remade. Consciousness did not evolve. ~~ in my opinion. Just saying spirit and souls exist and therefore it cant happen is nothing but a bold egocentric assertion. Saying that they do not is a bold egocentric assertion. I exist. I am consciousness. This is self evident to me. You disagree. That is your choice and your opinion.  Here is my philosophy: (Of the Divine consciousness within me) I am here now. (I exist) Now is infinity (I have always existed) I am divine potential.(I will always exit) My will be done (I am all powerful) I manifest (I am that which is.) I am the One (I am all that is.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S.
All that I state is my opinion, except when I say that I exist. Of that, I am certain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 07/20/09 10:05 AM
|
|
Saying that they do not is a bold egocentric assertion. Good thing I never have . . . I never claim that something that has never been ontologically defined cannot exist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets assume you are correct, and a machine, man made, did become conscious.
It would not be 'human' consciousness. If this 'conscious' machine had no feelings, or emotions, it could become quite dangerous and brutal, without compassion. Just like in the movie, "rise of the machines." I don't think mankind would be smart at all to create a conscious machine that had no ability to feel compassion. It would engage in "cold blooded' acts without feeling. If you think passion can be brutal, imagin a creature with lack of compassion that is not human. Bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets assume you are correct, and a machine, man made, did become conscious. It would not be 'human' consciousness. If this 'conscious' machine had no feelings, or emotions, it could become quite dangerous and brutal, without compassion. Just like in the movie, "rise of the machines." I don't think mankind would be smart at all to create a conscious machine that had no ability to feel compassion. It would engage in "cold blooded' acts without feeling. If you think passion can be brutal, imagin a creature with lack of compassion that is not human. Bad idea. |
|
|
|
|
