Do you think that AI will ever feel emotions?

river said:
Go back to post#255 , pad .
Click to expand...
Sure!
river said:
Highlighted

Not without the earleist forms of Life . A Billion years ago .
Click to expand...
-_O-_O-_O So what?
How can you stand there and say that is a reference for an infinite universe?
Why don't you just admit you don't know and are guessing?
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/is-the-universe-infinite
First, it’s still possible the universe is finite. All we know for sure (mostly for sure) is that it’s bigger than we can observe, essentially because the farthest edges of the universe we can see don’t look like edges. The observable universe is still huge, but it has limits. That’s because we know the universe isn’t infinitely old — we know the Big Bang occurred some 13.8 billion years ago.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-universe-finite-or-infinite/?sh=74a3fb694967
What I'd like to see discussed whether the universe is finite or infinite, and why it might be either.
We just don't know.
http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk#:~:text=No.,a plane is normally%2
No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And finally river old mate, the next reputable link explains how the universe did have a beginning at the BB, but could still be infinite.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
 
paddoboy said:
Sure!

-_O-_O-_O So what?
How can you stand there and say that is a reference for an infinite universe?
Why don't you just admit you don't know and are guessing?
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/is-the-universe-infinite
First, it’s still possible the universe is finite. All we know for sure (mostly for sure) is that it’s bigger than we can observe, essentially because the farthest edges of the universe we can see don’t look like edges. The observable universe is still huge, but it has limits. That’s because we know the universe isn’t infinitely old — we know the Big Bang occurred some 13.8 billion years ago.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...-universe-finite-or-infinite/?sh=74a3fb694967
What I'd like to see discussed whether the universe is finite or infinite, and why it might be either.
We just don't know.
http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk#:~:text=No.,a plane is normally%2
No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

And finally river old mate, the next reputable link explains how the universe did have a beginning at the BB, but could still be infinite.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Click to expand...

Imagine the Universe is Fundamentally Three Dimensional , which it actually is . Then what do you think pad ?
 
river said:
Imagine the Universe is Fundamentally Three Dimensional , which it actually is . Then what do you think pad ?
Click to expand...
And therein lies your problem...Stop imaging, stop being so obtuse...stop railing against anything mainstream...stop supporting the Plasma/Electric universe crap that has been debunked conclusively.
The universe is fundamentally four dimensional......length, breadth, height and time.
 
paddoboy said:
And therein lies your problem...Stop imaging, stop being so obtuse...stop railing against anything mainstream...stop supporting the Plasma/Electric universe crap that has been debunked conclusively.
The universe is fundamentally four dimensional......length, breadth, height and time.
Click to expand...

If I take away time nothing happens to breadth , height and length , the absence of time does not collapse the other three .

Take away any of the three from the three you collapse the other two as well as time .
 
pad Think about this ;

If I take away time nothing happens to breadth , height and length , the absence of time does not collapse the other three .

Take away any of the three from the three you collapse the other two as well as time .
 
river said:
Thanks for the video .

String Theory based on the three fundamental dimensions of this Universe , Depth , length and breadth . Take any of the three away , collapses String Theory .
Click to expand...
Have you ever considered that the reverse may be true? Take away strings (or fractals) and all three spatial dimensions collapse...:?

Don't dismiss this out-of-hand.......

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT)
theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
Click to expand...
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
Click to expand...
There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
 
Last edited:
Is there a requirement that an awareness of change has to be a conscious experience? Can it just be a comparative state?

Emotion
From a purely mechanistic perspective, "Emotions can be defined as a positive or negative experience that is associated with a particular pattern of physiological activity." Emotions produce different physiological, behavioral and cognitive changes. The original role of emotions was to motivate adaptive behaviors that in the past would have contributed to the passing on of genes through survival, reproduction, and kin selection.[9][10]
Click to expand...
In some theories, cognition is an important aspect of emotion. For those who act primarily on emotions, they may assume that they are not thinking, but mental processes involving cognition are still essential, particularly in the interpretation of events.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

When your car is running low of fuel, it warns the driver by a red "low fuel" light. This is a clear indication that the car's control system is detecting a state which presents a problem to the driver. It may not be emotionally involved in that action, but is it a differential awareness between a state of well-being as compared to a state of ill-being?
 
wegs said:
I was thinking about how if robots become more capable of autonomous actions, will they ever be capable of caring about us? Just as ''good people'' do, will robots ever reach a point of being able to act in our best interests? (your opinion)

Or do you envision that as robots become more independent, will they only look out for themselves?

Just some random thoughts I felt like tossing out there for discussion. :smile:
Click to expand...
The reality is that any Computer Language will be translated to Machine Code otherwise called Assembly Code. Here's all you have with a typical set of machine Code:

Math: Add, Sub, Mult, Div
Binary Logic: Or, And, Xor
Move Data: Mov RAM to RAM, Mov RAM to CPU, Move CPU to RAM,
Jump Execution: Unconditional, Conditional (=, <, >)

There isn't much else.

Which operation above is going to give the Computer an Emotion to care about you?

Furthermore:
Which operation above is going to be a Thought for a Computer?
Which operation will be an experience of Pain for the Computer?
Which operation will be an experience of Pleasure for the Computer?
Which operation will be an experience of Fear for the Computer? (I'm not getting into a Self Driving Car without this one)
Etc.?
 
Listen to this interchange between Sophia, AI and Philip K Dick, AI


and a little background.

 
Last edited:
Steve Klinko said:
The reality is that any Computer Language will be translated to Machine Code otherwise called Assembly Code.
Click to expand...
The reality is that human thought is a product of chemical and electrical impulses exchanged between neurons in the brain. All you have with a typical brain is neurons and their connections. There isn't much else.

Which operation of the human brain gives it an emotion that can care about you?

Which operation gives pain, pleasure and fear?
 
James R said:
Which operation of the human brain gives it an emotion that can care about you?
Click to expand...

It appears brain constructs emotions from previous situations

Feel sad about something, next time much same situation, cue much same emotion

:)
 
James R said:
The reality is that human thought is a product of chemical and electrical impulses exchanged between neurons in the brain. All you have with a typical brain is neurons and their connections. There isn't much else.

Which operation of the human brain gives it an emotion that can care about you?

Which operation gives pain, pleasure and fear?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the Hard Problem of Consciousness for the Human Mind. Your confidence that Human Consciousness is just Neural Activity (chemical electrical processes, connections) is not justified. There is no known Science that can causally show how such Neural Activity can produce Conscious Sensory Experiences in the Mind, such as Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, etc.. It is all just a Belief and a Hope at this point in time. Likewise, there is no known Science that can causally show how those fundamental Computer operations can produce Consciousness in the Machine. It is pure Superstition to think that those operations are producing Consciousness. We don't even know what Consciousness is in Humans, so saying authoritatively what Consciousness is in Computers is just nonsensical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top