Can a man-made computer become conscious?

Hi, because feelings are something unique for a biological organism, they require biological tools to be experienced and to be created, we are talking about something mechanical here, you can only program it to express feelings with words under certain conditions, like if you increase the its voltage , it can say - oh , it hurts. That's far from real feelings though....

I agree that the only agents we know of today that possess feelings are biological agents - but does it follow from this fact that all feelings are necessarily unique to biological organisms? I don't think so. I see no reason in principle why (suitably configured) machines could not possess feelings too. Perhaps we firstly need to agree just what a "feeling" is?

I agree that the only agents we know of today that possess feelings are biological agents - but does it follow from this fact that all feelings are necessarily unique to biological organisms? I don't think so. I see no reason in principle why (suitably configured) machines could not possess feelings too. Perhaps we firstly need to agree just what a "feeling" is?

On the contrary, I believe that feelings are unique to biological organisms and nothing purely mechanical can ever experience a feeling or an emotion the way we humans know it, may be it can be something that looks like it or imitates it but not the real thing. I await suggestions how to define feelings and emotions though, that's a tough one

On the contrary, I believe that feelings are unique to biological organisms and nothing purely mechanical can ever experience a feeling or an emotion the way we humans know it, may be it can be something that looks like it or imitates it but not the real thing. I await suggestions how to define feelings and emotions though, that's a tough one

OK, but this is moving the goalposts a little. We started off with the suggestion that machines could not have feelings at all, and now we have moved to the suggestion that machines cannot experience feelings "the way that humans do". I might be prepared to agree with the latter (after all, perhaps I do not experience feelings the way that you do), but this is not the same as the former.

On the contrary, I believe that feelings are unique to biological organisms and nothing purely mechanical can ever experience a feeling or an emotion the way we humans know it, may be it can be something that looks like it or imitates it but not the real thing. I await suggestions how to define feelings and emotions though, that's a tough one

OK, but this is moving the goalposts a little. We started off with the suggestion that machines could not have feelings at all, and now we have moved to the suggestion that machines cannot experience feelings "the way that humans do". I might be prepared to agree with the latter (after all, perhaps I do not experience feelings the way that you do), but this is not the same as the former.

But the problem is that the word ,,feeling,, is mainly associated with biological organism, you cannot put feelings into mechanics, the moment you say that a robot will have feelings, this cannot be called feelings anymore, this is something else. Actually my main point is that nothing purely mechanical can experience even the slightest feelings, even 0.0001% . And by feelings I mean like feeling of love, feeling of hatred, feeling of happiness etc, feeling of attraction, feeling of fear etc. Not only machines will never experience anything like this, they will never experience anything close to this, because they don't have the proper tools, namely a brain. A humans are far from recreating the most complex organ in our Universe, the brain. That's my stance on this In my previous post by ,,imitated,, I meant that a man can create a machine that seems to have feeling, but this will be cheating, it will only seem that way

But the problem is that the word ,,feeling,, is mainly associated with biological organism, you cannot put feelings into mechanics, the moment you say that a robot will have feelings, this cannot be called feelings anymore, this is something else.

Isn't that just because we have a prejudicial anthropocentric view of what a "feeling" is? Before the invention of the aeroplane humans could not fly and we could have argued that flying is something that birds and insects do but not humans or machines - if humans or machines are ever to take to the air then that cannot be called "flying", it must be something else? I agree that (today) feelings are associated only with biological agents (just as 100 years ago flying was associated only with birds and insects), but who knows what might be possible tomorrow? With all due respect, saying simply that "feelings are just something that machines cannot have" is hardly a logical or sound argument (at best its a definition of "feeling" as something unique to biological organisms, hence argument by definition).

Actually my main point is that nothing purely mechanical can experience even the slightest feelings, even 0.0001% . And by feelings I mean like feeling of love, feeling of hatred, feeling of happiness etc, feeling of attraction, feeling of fear etc. Not only machines will never experience anything like this, they will never experience anything close to this, because they don't have the proper tools, namely a brain.

I don't understand why you think such things as feelings of love, hatred, happiness, etc must always be exclusive to organic brains. Again, this seems to be an anthropocentric prejudice, I cannot see any sound argument which leads to the conclusion that no suitably configured machine could ever experience (for example) love or hatred.

A humans are far from recreating the most complex organ in our Universe, the brain. That's my stance on this

I agree. But aren't we discussing here what might be possible in principle, rather that what limited progress we humans have achieved so far?

Oh, if we are talking about the unknown future, say, 300,000 years from now, I guess there's some chance for this to happen, don't know how big though...I have to be a madman to be able to predict the future with certainty, it's not 100% impossible, I admit.

p.s.
My anthropocentric prejudice is based on a pure logic that concerns and is valid only for the 21th Century and probably will be valid in the 22nd as well

Cheers!

I have always asked myself this question:

It is (should be) Technically possible to acurately model a human brain, taking any human brain as a blueprint. That would mean modelling any neural connection, modelling the neural cells, and giving them the correct facilities to interact.

Now when you turn that on, what happens? I mean it technically is a computer without any software on it. The question begins at how you even turn it on? You would have to start giving it input of some sort, I guess. But would it just start working, creating a constant stream of interactions like our brain seemingly does?

It can probably be said that the "Software" in our brain is some kind of hard-wired system of connected nodes, that work like registers on an actual computer, giving the right output when receiving an input. But it still seems strange that that artificial "brain" would start doing things without receiving any instructions.

Cronos988 :I have always asked myself this question:

It is (should be) Technically possible to acurately model a human brain, taking any human brain as a blueprint. That would mean modelling any neural connection, modelling the neural cells, and giving them the correct facilities to interact.

We know very very little of how our brain really works, I believe that we are many many years away of getting a blueprint.

Now when you turn that on, what happens? I mean it technically is a computer without any software on it. The question begins at how you even turn it on? You would have to start giving it input of some sort, I guess. But would it just start working, creating a constant stream of interactions like our brain seemingly does?

If such a thing is build however and powered somehow and switched on, it might work , why not....but the complete replication of our brain is the absurd part here, I don't even think that we'll ever know how the brain really works with all the needed details to replicate it.
On the other hand even if we fully copy the brain from what we see from a functioning brain we still won't know how our brain generates thoughts, it's clear that the neurons light up during tought process but what generates thoughts, are thoughts made from matter or.... ? What are thoughts? What is the mechanism that turns these electrical impulses in what we call thoughts ? The replicated brain might not start generating thoughts on its own, there are many many many questions that make such an experiment impossible, at least for now

And as I think on this topic more and more.....

Our brain cannot surive much without all the factors that surround it, it's very dependend on everything, if we are going to replicate this, we'll need to build everything, we'll need to make a human, with body and everything, one that needs to eat, sleep, breathe etc. Because if our brain is exactly copied this is how it can develop otherwise it won't function unless it's created with a lot of modifications, so we'll basically need to create a human that has nothing biological in him/her

Having read all previous posts, this topic has brought out much of interest.

The issue seems to be, is it possible to make a construct which would function like a human. My short answer is NO. Why make another "thing" we would recognize to be like us when there are billions of us available?
First of all it would have to be illogical because we are. Then it would have to become aware that at some future time it would no longer exist, which would lead to angst and trying all kinds of very illogical escape methods like inventing "soul" whatever that is, and perhaps making Gods of its makers.
If our aims is to only give IT some human atributes, that has already started. Voice recognition is one and "garbage in garbage out" is something we see in computers as well as ourselves. The automobile computer functions much like the automatic part of our brain, which makes constant adjustments in order to keep within certain parameters.
It even tells us when it is time to feed it and when it needs to go to the car doctor.
Computer will continue to increase in computing power and mechanical components wil soon be history,with solid state components except for printers being the norm.
Flash memory will replace dvd/cd players. I see us just talking to our computer and it talking back to us, and the keyboard just being an optional item.
Quantum computers may become reality as in a fully functioning one, but there are still many obstacles to overcome.

Why make another "thing" we would recognize to be like us when there are billions of us available?

Humans love especially hard challenges, challenges do need much logic to be created, they just are....and are challenging...

I agree with you Gen66. That old adage comes to mind that you should be careful what you pray/wish/strive for.
A computer at this time is a stupid fast machine which handles logic only, wether sentience would stil be logical or not might be something worthwhile studying.
Can you imagine a supercomputer with emotions, one that interconnects with other puters worldwide?

Animal species are social and not separate individuals. Therefore to make an artefact that is animal the artefact would have to have a brain that is a social brain. The social brain vannot exist without the social group of individuals, therefore the brain artefacts would have to be able to communicate feelings and ideas with each other. They would also have to be able to cooperate and compete with each other as individual social animals must if the social group is to survive.

Hi Belinda.

Many animals are social however there are also many who are loners. Some to the extend that they will kill each other except for breeding purpose. Many felines are loners in the wild.
Many bears, wolverines, martens etc are not social but dangerous to their own kind.

I'll tyake your word for it, Wooden shoe, however by 'social' I mean something like cooperating to feed each other and the youngsters, to defend each other sometimes. perhaps only at certain seasons, and also preying on other species which divides the predator from other groups of animals. Generally, by 'social' I mean having need of others of the same or of a different species.

The pathetic monster created by Frankenstein would not have been dangerous if he had been accepted by the human species that he was created to be part of. He was created a social animal and his feelings were created by Frankenstein to be the same as the biologically humans' feelings. Therefore it is theoretically possible to create an artefact, like the Frankenstein monster, who is human without having been being created in the biological way.

I think I heard that some scientist in Canada has already created a life form in the lab, outside of the biological route to creation.

Eventually we may become what we consider man made, but by then I would guess the cat to be out of the bag. We find things, things that are already there. We are like a child in a play pen, sometimes I even think that these things find us instead. I see no reason as technology advances, that we will have to advance ourselves through technology. Consider it a form of evolution, but evolution and nature it'self may well be the end result of something more like what we are finding.
You see I have a theory, I believe that as time goes forward, we through the imagination are going back. Going home, that in some twist of fate, everything had already took place, and that reality as we know it was created in the leftovers, that there were only ever two probabilities, one that is everything, and one that is not anything. The one that is everything created the big bang, reality. We are no more than aspects of what created it, like memories that take form time and time again, being played out, over and over differently. Time is the trick you see, what you don't see is moment where time is no longer relevant. Until death....I guess.
Remember when you dream, anything can happen, it appears though in an instant, time was not present, what was though where moments measured without time. I believe that this illusion of time in the illusion of reality, is how we manage to separate in being, the moments in not being, that are all just one.