• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When machines become self-aware I will become an atheist (maybe)

Do you think computers will become self-aware ?

  • In the next 10 years

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • in the next 20 years

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • in the next 50 to 100 years

    Votes: 5 19.2%
  • More than a hundred years...

    Votes: 2 7.7%
  • never

    Votes: 14 53.8%

  • Total voters
    26

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
You and I have somewhat similar beliefs as my thread indicates. I believe in what is called duality as in mind brain duality. The overwhelming majority of scientists choose to believe only the brain exists. According to contemporary science he mind does not exist without the brain, and there is no separate mind and brain in life.
Agreed. That is why I found the materialists take a stance against paranormal things like Near Death Experiences and mediums that seem to indicate consciousness is not a product of the physical brain. To quote one scientist who was trying to be both humorous and serious: If they disregard the data that doesn't fit, the rest of the data fits nicely.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I prefer Michael from Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Personally, I feel consciousness is a matter of degree, and at least everything that we consider living is at least a little bit conscious...even microbes, to my way of thinking, go around say "I, I, I" to themselves...

I'm not interested in trying to define it though. I suspect that eventually computers will get good enough to fake humans most of the time, and may in time become self-aware, too. Since we have difficulty defining what we mean even when we're talking about ourselves, I'm not too worried about it...

Yes I too feel everything has some level of self awareness. However I began to suspect animals had some form of self awareness due to a special pet. Bogie was my best friend for 12 years and was a basset hound. There was just something there behind his droopy Einstein like eyes, and human like expressions. I won't waste time on trying to prove it but it was there. Anyway now I have guilt problems eating meat. Maybe I am just getting soft, who knows?

Gen 1:29 ... And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
I don't think self-awareness is really difficult at all -or the real issue.
Self-awareness is pretty much looking into a mirror -a matter of perspective -and should be relatively easy to program.

Independent thought, self-determination/will and creativity are the real issues.
Artificial intelligence would have to be made so -or made able to become so independently -but I suppose we might do so without realizing it.

I think sentience self awareness or knowing it exists is impossible for science to do and will remain so for a long time. First we really don;t know what it is, really it seems like a missing link between divinity or spiritualism and materialism. It is 'something' but its not measurable etc. In my opinion its far easier to to program Independent thought, self-determination/will and creativity than self awareness. With self awareness those other things would probably not need to be programmed.
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Machines are already self aware.

Ciao

- viole

Hi viole! I though you had absconded! Happy to see you back. If I remember your past replies etc I am not surprised you are of that belief. Can you refresh my memory as to how that could be? By that I mean do you think the universe is self aware? Do you think all machines are self aware due to their number of connections, for example the web was supposed to become conscious when a certain number of connections were or are obtained. Lastly, how are you defining self awareness? I have had some computers that I would swear are not only 'self-aware' but alive and evil too!
 

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
Robots are specialized to do a repetitive task or in a range of tasks. Robots are no where near the AI the OP is talking about. Our Selves are do to the massive amounts of sensory inputs we get, the multiple decision making processes we use, our emotional ranges and experiences that use these. To put all that into an AI would be ridiculously expensive and the amount of time we would have to wait until it learned and decided what it wanted to do would be inefficient. Imagine making an AI to solve medical problems and it decides it wants to play video games. You laugh but it can't be AI unless it can make its own decisions and as long as we limit the decisions it will not be AI.

What I meant was the components of a self aware machine could be mass produced if we discovered how to create it. You know a self aware mother board or chip. I think the most larg problem would be ethical considerations. Especially if SAAIM's (self aware artificial intelligent machines) were cheap. Everyone would have one or a few. So we could work them forever and for free, or could we? I wouldn't want to. And that might a reason the SAIM would face an uncertain future, we don't want slaves do we? Careful that might be a trick question!
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
What I meant was the components of a self aware machine could be mass produced if we discovered how to create it. You know a self aware mother board or chip. I think the most larg problem would be ethical considerations. Especially if SAAIM's (self aware artificial intelligent machines) were cheap. Everyone would have one or a few. So we could work them forever and for free, or could we? I wouldn't want to. And that might a reason the SAIM would face an uncertain future, we don't want slaves do we? Careful that might be a trick question!

I dont believe AI could be a chip or a closed program. Evolution was the simplest way to make Intelligence and I don't see us creating a simpler one.
 

Jonathan Ainsley Bain

Logical Positivist
Hawking said to understand what happens beyond the event horizon we will need a new physics, I agree! I am afraid our ability to understand the truly complicated workings of the universe is beyond our capacity.

Today is your lucky day.
I just finished the new physics last week.
(I kid you not, it was bloody exhausting)
And actually it is all quite simple to understand,
now that I have crunched relativity out of existence.

Take your time on it, if you please:
Computational analysis of LIGO gravitational-wave experiment GW150914
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Ownership of a soul should be the same thing or a necessary part of being aware of its own existence
No, that can't be right can it? Surely the concepts of both "ownership" and "soul" are predicated on the existence of a "self" - and what is a "self" that is not "self-aware"? (Apart from "free" - before the Buddhists chip in).
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
I think sentience self awareness or knowing it exists is impossible for science to do and will remain so for a long time. First we really don;t know what it is, really it seems like a missing link between divinity or spiritualism and materialism. It is 'something' but its not measurable etc. In my opinion its far easier to to program Independent thought, self-determination/will and creativity than self awareness. With self awareness those other things would probably not need to be programmed.

I do believe the complexities, subtleties and artistry which allow for our level of self-awareness, creativity and especially experience are very much beyond us at present, but we know enough about the subject to generally define it.
We know what it is, generally -but we do not yet know HOW it is.

I am most fascinated by how we experience things such as sight, smell, taste, sound, touch, etc. We can make machines which are able to process things they see, smell, taste and hear and touch -but we cannot yet make them experience those things as we do.

I do not believe it is completely impossible for us to create beings which are similar to ourselves -but I don't think it will happen soon.

Gen 11:6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech

What is your best definition of "self-aware"?
 
Last edited:

siti

Well-Known Member
Gen 11:6And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech
Geez! I never realized that RF was prophesied by Moses!
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Spirit warrior. You point out a rather obvious that for some isnt . The problem in your explanation is using the term materialism. I think a clearer term is reductionism. That manifests in both religion and science. I liked your explaination and grphics.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
To quote one scientist who was trying to be both humorous and serious: If they disregard the data that doesn't fit, the rest of the data fits nicely.

Hits the nail on the head. This is what I argued elsewhere, scientists who do actually have scientific data to support the separate existence of mind and consciousness from the body in fields like Parapsychology and Transpersonal psychology, get disregarded. Even though this is a massive body of scientific documented literature spanning over 100 years. If you looked at the evidence we have so far, even as far back as a few decades ago, Materialism would have been considered falsified. There is enough evidence to show telepathy exists, precognition exists, reincarnation exists and astral bodies/subtle bodies/soul exists.

I am consistent and honest, I just go where the data points. This is why I was able to break free of my old materialistic thinking. I was not stubborn. In fact, I was an extreme materialist, the eliminative kind, and I totally denied the existence of consciousness and all subjectivity, to the point where I saw all human beings as nothing more than machines with "ghosts" --- that needed to be exorcised. Fortunately, before I was able to act on my materialist thinking, I learned of this other data and it started to change the way I thought. Of course it took a while before I completely abandoned the materialist worldview, as I needed to experience certain realities for myself(direct experience is the king of all epistemology) but I was honest enough to let the data guide me and not reject it because it did not fit my beliefs.

Thus, I have a massive problem with dishonest materialists. I don't fault them for subscribing to the materialist worldview, because in a way I see it as an intellectual rites of passage, but I have a massive problem with those materialists who disregard evidence. As they cease being skeptic, rational and scientific, and just become hypocritical religious believers with no consistent standard of truth or ethic.
 
Last edited:

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Hits the nail on the head. This is what I argued elsewhere, scientists who do actually have scientific data to support the separate existence of mind and consciousness from the body in fields like Parapsychology and Transpersonal psychology, get disregarded.

Those "fields" are not scientific though. So there are no such "scientists who do actually have scientific data" within those fields. You are kidding yourself, gravely. You saying it doesn't make it true; You also have to verify your claim, and gather evidence.

Show me evidence that those fields are scientific.

Even though this is a massive body of scientific documented literature spanning over 100 years.

Not regarding those fields.

If you looked at the evidence we have so far, even as far back as a few decades ago, Materialism would have been considered falsified.

Evidence? Would have been? If there is evidence it could not be an issue of "would have". Nice job trying to reduce everything to such basic levels, it does you NO CREDIT WHATSOEVER.

There is no evidence unless you can show it. Show us that anything has been falsified. And i'm trying to tell you this as a non-materialist. I'm completely serious.

There is enough evidence to show telepathy exists, precognition exists, reincarnation exists and astral bodies/subtle bodies/soul exists.

No there isn't. There's just about enough hearsay and conjecture for you to believe in it. Your senses do not count as evidence.

Oh, and nice job: You are devolving a thread about mechanical intelligences into an argument for ESP and telepathy! Classy. You called machine self-awareness a fantasy yet you have evidence of telepathy. I would really like to see it. I mean the evidence.

Your rejection of materialism is starting to be borderline funny. Most rational people would accept that BOTH the material and spiritual realms are a possibility. You're just flatly rejecting one of them. :D

If you don't accept materialism, why are you trying to argue a materialistic / scientific question?

I am consistent and honest

I would argue that you are neither consistent or honest. You are welcome to try to show, with evidence that you are either of those things. Currently the evidence would point out to the fact that you're dishonest and flippant.

I have a massive problem with dishonest materialists. I don't fault them for subscribing to the materialist worldview

But you do fault them: You call them dishonest just for having that view. YOU are being very dishonest. Your bias is too visible.

You should understand this: Science is the study of materialistic phenomena, simply put. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but it's starting to look like you want to bring anti-materialism into the scope of science. That's a fool's errand. Science makes no claims about the spiritual, so by definition, your spiritual view should say nothing about the scientific.

I think your agenda is lowering the value of serious discussion about the subject: If you're going to use science, don't **** up its definitions and terms to suit your agenda. You literally want to believe in ESP and telekinesis, but you dismiss machine self-awareness as silly fantasies conceived by Disney, and that materialists are dishonest. You are NOT very consistent with your argument at all.
 
Last edited:

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
You should understand this: Science is the study of materialistic phenomena, simply put. I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but it's starting to look like you want to bring anti-materialism into the scope of science.

If you're going to use science, don't **** up its definitions and terms to suit your agenda.

You are right a discussion on Parapsychology would be derailing the OP which is a discussion about whether machines can become self-aware. So I will not say anymore on this subject, beyond what I touch on in this post. Start a new thread if you are sincere about learning about Parapsychology, as it is very clear from your comment "It is only heresay" you know absolutely nothing about Parapsychology. Hence, you are ignorant talking about a field you know nothing about.

However, I will respond to what I quoted. It appears not only do you know about Parapsychology, you seem to know next to nothing about Philosophy of Science or the Scientific method. Science is not a metaphysics, do you even know what a metaphysics is? A metaphysics makes ontological claims about the nature of reality, what reality really is made of(matter, or ideas, or whatever) The fields of science, say like Physics, do NOT make claims about the nature of reality. They make claims about the physical world and they study physical things by looking at the behaviour of physical things like say particles, sound, light etc. It is based on not just describing their behaviour, but also developing models that both describe and predict the behaviour of physical things. It does NOT and I repeat it does NOT make claims about what really exists -- that is domain of metaphysics.

Psychology, is another field of science. They make claims about the mind and behaviour and they study mental phenomena and behaviour by looking at how it works, again using the scientific method, but using both experimental approaches(controlled blind and double blind) as well other quantitative and qualitative research methods(questionaires, case studies, interviews, observation, mental phenomenology) Of this Parapsychology and recently Trans-personal psychology are branches, they also study mind and behaviour, but they study particular aspects. Parapsychology studies claims using again the same array of methods of claims like ESP, past life memories, ghosts, mediumship etc. It is not based on heresay and just by saying this you are showing how fatally ignorant you are on the subject. A parapsychologist takes a skeptical approach to these claims, devises methods to test the claims to collect data, documents the study, and then draws inferences from the data like any other scientist does then publishes it for peer review which is then studied by other scientists. Transpersonal psychology(which I think now includes Parapsychology) studies transpersonal phenomena like compassion, prayer(directed intention) OBE, NDE and other states of consciousness.

So, if you haven't got it already, Science is an epistemology a method of obtaining knowledge. It is metaphysically neutral. You do not have to be a materialist, or that matter an idealist or a dualist to use the method. You simply apply the method and let the data point you to the conclusions. If the data is showing you ESP is real, you accept it. That is what a scientist does. If you do not accept your data because it contradicts your a priori beliefs you ain't no scientist.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Hi viole! I though you had absconded! Happy to see you back. If I remember your past replies etc I am not surprised you are of that belief. Can you refresh my memory as to how that could be? By that I mean do you think the universe is self aware? Do you think all machines are self aware due to their number of connections, for example the web was supposed to become conscious when a certain number of connections were or are obtained. Lastly, how are you defining self awareness? I have had some computers that I would swear are not only 'self-aware' but alive and evil too!

That is not what I meant.

I feel self aware. Cannot say about you, but it is a safe bet you are self aware, too.

Ergo, at least one machine is self aware.

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

MrMrdevincamus

Voice Of The Martyrs Supporter
INTERFORUM MEMORANDUM...From the desk of MrMr (lol) well it sounds good ....

Truthfully again I want to apologize to the forum and members for my slow or non response to their replies etc. My health conspires against my time for recreation and the meds dull my wit, the good news is improvement is in the wings! ~




Today is your lucky day.
I just finished the new physics last week.
(I kid you not, it was bloody exhausting)
And actually it is all quite simple to understand,
now that I have crunched relativity out of existence.

I can imagine! Many have attempted to show Einstein was either incorrect or incomplete in his wonderful musings. Your 'paper' looks fantastic and popular reader friendly.


I will look it over and respond in a decade or two....ha ha....

In matter of physics save for calculations that are simple to moderate I do not second guess the PhDs or even grad students figuring there are many capable math and scientist waiting to tear apart those who publish papers with mistakes and such. I do envy the handful of truly gifted people that can use advanced complicated mathematics and physics for discovery
 
Top