Are Computers Aware?

[idav]

Just wait a little more time and beware. Computers will snatch away girlfriends/boyfriends of many, including their own programmers, and copulate right under their noses, to investigate the science of jealousy, possesiveness etc..

Perhaps but as long as we are doing the programming maybe we can limit the amount of entrusiveness and keep them doing the jobs they were designed to do.

Is there any presupposition in the blue highlighted part?

I do believe that AI would need to go by the hypthesis that a brain can be achieved by mere materialistic means otherwise we would run into a problem when trying to give the machine a soul. If it is true that our brain doesn't have non-material then simple awareness should likely be achieved if we haven't achieved it already. As complex as a single celled organism is I believe we have at least already achieved that level of complexity. Therefore it seems that if a single-celled organism is aware a computer might just be as well. I'm not quite certain at what point the cause and effect of chemicals in organisms produces authentic awareness.

 

[Copernicus]

Is there any presupposition in the blue highlighted part?

There are always presuppositions in every use of language. What is important is that there is no presupposition failure or false presupposition in the part you highlighted. There is no reason to assume anything non-physical or "quantum weird" in the functioning of a human brain. It is as much a purely physical system as a weather system. You can just describe it in very high level terms. Just as a set of micro-weather interactions can give rise to what we call a "cold front", the combined activity of neurons can give rise to what we call a "thought" or "emotion".

 

[atanu]

There are always presuppositions in every use of language. What is important is that there is no presupposition failure or false presupposition in the part you highlighted. There is no reason to assume anything non-physical or "quantum weird" in the functioning of a human brain. It is as much a purely physical system as a weather system. You can just describe it in very high level terms. Just as a set of micro-weather interactions can give rise to what we call a "cold front", the combined activity of neurons can give rise to what we call a "thought" or "emotion".

Copernicus.

What the supposition 'non-physical' has as its base?

 

[atanu]

Therefore it seems that if a single-celled organism is aware a computer might just be as well. I'm not quite certain at what point the cause and effect of chemicals in organisms produces authentic awareness.

I do not see any reason to believe so. A single cell can multiply. A computer cannot, unless specifically programmed so.

I am often amazed that how men can even compare the living and non-living.

 

[idav]

I do not see any reason to believe so. A single cell can multiply. A computer cannot, unless specifically programmed so.

I am often amazed that how men can even compare the living and non-living.

We are already "preprogrammed" in a way through the instructions in our dna. The dna is a result of whatever programming was encoded through your parents genes.

I'm comparing living and non-living in this thread from a philosophical perspective. Why would something need the ability to reproduce to be aware? Awareness is simply reacting to stimuli.

 

[atanu]

We are already "preprogrammed" in a way through the instructions in our dna. The dna is a result of whatever programming was encoded through your parents genes.

Ya. But that is much the same as saying that God or Nature programmed the DNA.

I'm comparing living and non-living in this thread from a philosophical perspective. Why would something need the ability to reproduce to be aware? Awareness is simply reacting to stimuli.

I thought that was given. There was time when it was held that trees do not have life. Hindus have always taken the trees as living. Even now, HIndus do believe that the whole universe is the manifestation of a living-throbbing-intelligent divine person. Our individual egos come and go on that.

 

[atanu]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2538245-post33.html

 

[idav]

Ya. But that is much the same as saying that God or Nature programmed the DNA.

The problem with that is that in life it isn't programmed from a designer we are just born and procreation makes us this way. We are programmed to eat and sleep and procreate but a designer has not been shown to be the cause. You can go back further and maybe find a cause but you would have to go back to the beginning of the universe. Life doesn't seem to have needed intervention to come about except for animals sexually or asexually reproducing.

If life came about just by matter and chemicals reacting to each other in increasing comlexity then the same can be done using other materials even if the materials are man made. If not you would have to show how life is anything more than the basic elements found in nature.

 

[atanu]

The problem with that is that in life it isn't programmed from a designer we are just born and procreation makes us this way. We are programmed to eat and sleep and procreate but a designer has not been shown to be the cause. You can go back further and maybe find a cause but you would have to go back to the beginning of the universe. Life doesn't seem to have needed intervention to come about except for animals sexually or asexually reproducing.

If we are programmed similar to computers, then there must be some agency that has done the programming -- if you wish the analogy to have any correspondence. We cannot have it bothways -- reject consciousness and also reject the programmer.

If life came about just by matter and chemicals reacting to each other in increasing comlexity then the same can be done using other materials even if the materials are man made. If not you would have to show how life is anything more than the basic elements found in nature.

That is an 'If' -- whether life came by material reactions? Logically, it is a fallacy. With a given consciousness, we make a supposition that there is 'material' and then superimpose that material on the given consciousness itself. I do not buy that.

 

[atanu]

There are always presuppositions in every use of language. What is important is that there is no presupposition failure or false presupposition in the part you highlighted. There is no reason to assume anything non-physical or "quantum weird" in the functioning of a human brain. It is as much a purely physical system as a weather system. You can just describe it in very high level terms. Just as a set of micro-weather interactions can give rise to what we call a "cold front", the combined activity of neurons can give rise to what we call a "thought" or "emotion".

Bump.

Copernicus.

What the supposition 'non-physical' has as its base?

 

[idav]

If we are programmed similar to computers, then there must be some agency that has done the programming -- if you wish the analogy to have any correspondence. We cannot have it bothways -- reject consciousness and also reject the programmer.




That is an 'If' -- whether life came by material reactions? Logically, it is a fallacy. With a given consciousness, we make a supposition that there is 'material' and then superimpose that material on the given consciousness itself. I do not buy that.

I don't mean to say we are literally programmed the way we program a machine. What I mean is that there are instructions in our DNA that determine which is very similar to a built in program. The DNA sequences have come about through evolution over billions of years which is where I am supposing that life came about through material causes. The 'if' you find to be a fallacy is supposing evolution to be true requiring no entity to literally do any programming.

 

[Copernicus]

What the supposition 'non-physical' has as its base?

If I could make sense of that question, I might be able to answer it. When you say "base", do you mean "basis" or are you referring to the linguistic root or stem of the word? And by "supposition", do you mean "presupposition" or "assumption"?

In the original post where I used the word "non-physical", I was saying that there appeared to be nothing in brain activity that would suggest a supernatural or spiritual basis for brain activity. Does that help?

I would also add, in light of your remarks to idav, that nobody is claiming that the mind is programmed like a computer is programmed. Think of a brain as an autonomous device that programs itself. Our DNA serves as the blueprint for the construction of this machine. What caused our DNA to have a set of these instructions was billions of years of optimization through adaptation to environmental changes affecting the slightly flawed mechanism of self-replication encoded in DNA.

 

[atanu]

If I could make sense of that question, I might be able to answer it. When you say "base", do you mean "basis" or are you referring to the linguistic root or stem of the word? And by "supposition", do you mean "presupposition" or "assumption"?

In the original post where I used the word "non-physical", I was saying that there appeared to be nothing in brain activity that would suggest a supernatural or spiritual basis for brain activity. Does that help?

I would also add, in light of your remarks to idav, that nobody is claiming that the mind is programmed like a computer is programmed. Think of a brain as an autonomous device that programs itself. Our DNA serves as the blueprint for the construction of this machine. What caused our DNA to have a set of these instructions was billions of years of optimization through adaptation to environmental changes affecting the slightly flawed mechanism of self-replication encoded in DNA.

Ha ha Dear Copernicus.

It certainly helps. You have a presupposition based on given power of mind of a sense of duality: physical vs. non-physical etc.

Not you but everyone.

 

[idav]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2538245-post33.html

Imitating the computational function is all that would be needed. A computer doesn't have to be emotional to be aware. A human doesn't need emotion to be considered human they can have all sorts of issues and limitations. One main difference is that we turn off a machine and the machine loses who it is. It resets and has to relearn everything. Like the human mind it would have to stay on constantly and not forget and at least have some recollection of past events which makes a person who they are. The scary thing is that a machines memories would be much more precise since it has better accessing and filing capabilities.

 

[Tiberius]

Computers are able to receive input from its environment through keyboards, scans, cams and microphones. The computer is also able to store this data and even send information back in return based on its own resources. Is this enough to satisfy any part of the definition of awareness? Why or why not.

So can a tape recorder.

 

[idav]

So can a tape recorder.

It's true and is a great tool since it has much better recall than we do. By definition the recorder would be aware as long as it was on and recording. Also digitial recordings are bit more accessible. Though with an aware being there is never a point we would be turned off otherwise the being is dead.

An advantage with the computer is that when it is turned on files can be readily available for access. It would require very decent software to recall something recorded on such and such a day about a certain topic your inquiring about. If most of the information from the recordings are readily available through cache we get a more complex system that can recall with greater intelligence. Though at that point it is getting more into the realm of consciousness rather than simple awareness.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It's hard to say that consciousness is anything but the modelling of sensory data, so in that way, computers would be.

 

[Me Myself]

1- I love this question

2- Techinically, the only awareness you can be sure of is your own. all the rest of us could just be a dream you are having.

3- People just suppose people have awareness because when you look in the mirror and see a nose two eyes two ears and know you are self aware, you will then see other people having this characteristics and having similar patterns and behaviours and will just Suppose they are self aware too. technically, nothing they can do can prove their awareness.

NOTHING can prove the awareness of NOBODY besides you(whoever you are) that are reading this.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

3- People just suppose people have awareness because when you look in the mirror and see a nose two eyes two ears and know you are self aware, you will then see other people having this characteristics and having similar patterns and behaviours and will just Suppose they are self aware too. technically, nothing they can do can prove their awareness.

NOTHING can prove the awareness of NOBODY besides you(whoever you are) that are reading this.

The assumption of other awareness is of high moral concern, though. If it is assumed that other beings are aware, then a different way of interaction is called for.

 

[idav]

The assumption of other awareness is of high moral concern, though. If it is assumed that other beings are aware, then a different way of interaction is called for.

Yes it ranges in moral implications for everything from acknowledging your significant other to killing a fly and even to killing plants.

To take it a bit futher, if killing a plant other than for sustenance is wrong then should I even turn off my computer?