Are Computers Aware?

[Pegg]

Here is a quick definition from wiki.

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.

It also seems that consciousness can be a possibility when the computer is actually turned on. It is storing memory into RAM accessing its memory in real-time however this memory gets wiped once the computer shuts down. When the computer comes back up it puts all the memory it can into the RAM which is what the computer is "aware" of in order to run current processes.

The other thing to consider what it actually takes to feel something. Is perceiving enough to feel something?

computers are certainly NOT conscious

their processes run because when you pass an electrical current through them, they do stuff they've been programmed to do. Its as simple as that.

 

[idav]

computers are certainly NOT conscious

their processes run because when you pass an electrical current through them, they do stuff they've been programmed to do. Its as simple as that.

Same as us. Electric current and chemistry. We are machines put quite simply. We are programmed as well.

 

[Pegg]

Same as us. Electric current and chemistry. We are machines put quite simply. We are programmed as well.

the brain of just one human has more computing power then all the computers in the world combined

I dont think living things can be likened to computers...even animals have more going on in them then the worlds computers. And our conscience allows for free will whereas a computer has no consciousness at all. But yes i agree we are all powered by electricity...however conscious beings have an added ingredient which computers dont.

Life.

 

[idav]

the brain of just one human has more computing power then all the computers in the world combined

We are moving fast and we have super computer calculating astronomical figures. Soon machines will be helping doctors do diagnosis.

I dont think living things can be likened to computers...even animals have more going on in them then the worlds computers. And our conscience allows for free will whereas a computer has no consciousness at all. But yes i agree we are all powered by electricity...however conscious beings have an added ingredient which computers dont.

Life.

Life is willful animation which machines have. Consciousness and awareness require a bit more than animation, they require computation and analysis which we have in common with smart machines.

Human awareness is obviously quite advanced compared to the simple awareness of some other animals. However the basics are there. Computers beating humans at chess and jeopardy is just the beginning.

 

[Adramelek]

We eventually gained consciousness due to the necessity of it. As long as we don't need computers to think, they won't. However, with the continuing progression towards the "semantic web", a search engine could very well be the first AI.

Actually, the human mind is the first form of AI.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Actually, the human mind is the first form of AI.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

I think that depends on how you define artificial. Obviously no tampering was done to the human mind outside of evolutionary factors, so I would disagree.

 

[Adramelek]

I think that depends on how you define artificial. Obviously no tampering was done to the human mind outside of evolutionary factors, so I would disagree.

How is it "obvious"? Please explane in detail. I would argue that human intelligence and intellect is something unique and is a part of our non-natural nature. Note: I am not saying my hypothosis is "obvious", just a point of view.

 

[Copernicus]

How is it "obvious"? Please explane in detail. I would argue that human intelligence and intellect is something unique and is a part of our non-natural nature. Note: I am not saying my hypothosis is "obvious", just a point of view.

In that case, it isn't an argument, is it? It is just a bald assertion. On what basis would you consider our intellectual abilities non-natural?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How is it "obvious"? Please explane in detail. I would argue that human intelligence and intellect is something unique and is a part of our non-natural nature. Note: I am not saying my hypothosis is "obvious", just a point of view.

Well, have you any evidence of technical manipulation of DNA to produce consciousness? Obviously it's not an individual manipulation, since it is carried into future generations without necessary surgery.

 

[YmirGF]

Here is a quick definition from wiki.

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.

It also seems that consciousness can be a possibility when the computer is actually turned on. It is storing memory into RAM accessing its memory in real-time however this memory gets wiped once the computer shuts down. When the computer comes back up it puts all the memory it can into the RAM which is what the computer is "aware" of in order to run current processes.

The other thing to consider what it actually takes to feel something. Is perceiving enough to feel something?

All somewhat true, but well crafted logic structures are still quite a leap away from sentience.

 

[Adramelek]

Well, have you any evidence of technical manipulation of DNA to produce consciousness? Obviously it's not an individual manipulation, since it is carried into future generations without necessary surgery.

Altered DNA whether naturally or non-naturally manipulated will evolve continually over eons of the life forms existence. My suggestion is only a theory, you say yours is obvious, therefore, an absolute truth. I say prove it!

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Altered DNA whether naturally or non-naturally manipulated will evolve continually over eons of the life forms existence. My suggestion is only a theory, you say yours is obvious, therefore, an absolute truth. I say prove it!

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

Obvious doesn't make it an absolute truth. It just makes it what is most likely and understood given the evidence, and I have yet to see evidence towards anything other than natural evolution of consciousness.

Now, if there is some sort of evidence you'd like to present that would invalidate evolution as the source of human consciousness, I'd enjoy reviewing it.

 

[MD]

Are computers self aware? No. Or aware? I don't know. I believe that to achieve self awareness or even awareness we need to have intentionality.

Since we do not understand how intentionality arises or even exists we have to either assume that it is either the non linear product of billions of neurons working together or it is an intrinsic property of a system which shares information. If the former is true then computers can never be aware since all computers work through linear algorithms, if the latter is true then computers are already aware on some minor level.

 

[Adramelek]

Obvious doesn't make it an absolute truth. It just makes it what is most likely and understood given the evidence, and I have yet to see evidence towards anything other than natural evolution of consciousness.

Now, if there is some sort of evidence you'd like to present that would invalidate evolution as the source of human consciousness, I'd enjoy reviewing it.

If one is to presume that the natural order is a mindless, non-thinking machine then the construct of free will, higher intelligence, intellectual reasoning, and self-awareness, etc. might be viewed as products of an essence or an element which is seperate and distinct from the rest of the law of the cosmos. However, if you view such a phenomenon as a part of the universal cosmic law, then perhaps you might be more at home with the Right-Hand Path. For in ancient times as they are in modern times nature worshipping religions are RHP, and psyche-worshipping religions are LHP. You should decide for yourself which one you truly are in accordance with to your own life philosophy.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If one is to presume that the natural order is a mindless, non-thinking machine then the construct of free will, higher intelligence, intellectual reasoning, and self-awareness, etc. are products of an essence or an element which is seperate and distinct from the rest of the law of the cosmos. However, if you view such a phenomenon as a part of the universal cosmic law, then perhaps you might be more at home with the Right-Hand Path. For in ancient times as they are in modern times nature worshipping religions are RHP, and psyche-worshipping religions are LHP. You must decide for yourself which one you truly are in accordance with to your own life philosophy.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what I asked of you.

But thanks for trying to devalue my choice in DIRs.

 

[Adramelek]

That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with what I asked of you.

But thanks for trying to devalue my choice in DIRs.

Ok, Gjallarhorn, you've succeeded in peaking my interest, I try and I try, but you seem to be hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong at every step. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but I would really like to know what is your real question to me?

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ok, Gjallarhorn, you've succeeded in peaking my interest, I try and I try, but you seem to be hell-bent on trying to prove me wrong at every step. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, but I would really like to know what is your real question to me?

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

At this point, it's not particularly about proving you wrong so much as asking for elaboration. What do you mean by separate and distinct? Consciousness seems to be a rather intimate piece of reality to me.

 

[Adramelek]

]At this point, it's not particularly about proving you wrong so much as asking for elaboration. What do you mean by separate and distinct? Consciousness seems to be a rather intimate piece of reality to me.[/quote]

What I mean by seperate and distinct is just that, the Self or psyche as seperate and distinct from the order of the cosmos as a non-natural phenomenon. Self-Awareness is, to me and most other Setians, a part of reality. Where does it say that reality or the "real world" must be a singularity? It is only a part of the objective and subjective universes? What Magic does is to fuse these two realities into a cosmic singularity.

Xeper.
/Adramelek\

 

[Manzila]

The word awareness it has different meaning in different field. Its quite difficult to explain.

 

[dust1n]

The Chinese room is a thought experiment presented by John Searle.[1] It supposes that there is a program that gives a computer the ability to carry on an intelligent conversation in written Chinese. If the program is given to someone who speaks only English to execute the instructions of the program by hand, then in theory, the English speaker would also be able to carry on a conversation in written Chinese. However, the English speaker would not be able to understand the conversation. Similarly, Searle concludes, a computer executing the program would not understand the conversation either.

The experiment is the centerpiece of Searle's Chinese room argument which holds that a program cannot give a computer a "mind", "understanding" or "consciousness",[a] regardless of how intelligently it may make it behave. The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism,[2] which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information processing system operating on formal symbols. Although it was originally presented in reaction to the statements of artificial intelligence researchers, it is not an argument against the goals of AI research, because it does not limit the amount of intelligence a machine can display.[3] The argument applies only to digital computers and does not apply to machines in general.[4]

Chinese room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia