Why computers will never be conscious

Status
Not open for further replies.
the topic reads "Why computers will never be conscious" not "Why computers are not conscious"
Click to expand...

to me this is the point. if our design of computers froze today consciousness as we define it wouldn't be possible in a computer but in reality computer design isnt static.

Someone else pointed out that,
"for a machine to be a conscious in a human fashion all you need is to emulate a body and an hook it up with reality."
Click to expand...
now granted we are a long way away from being able to make anything nearly this complex now but im not aware of any law that precludes this in the future. since biology can already do it we know its at least physically possible.

saying computers will NEVER be conscious, period! is a pretty big assumption considering how little we understand about consciousness and the fact that computing is still in its infancy (its barely reached the zygote stage).
 
My ideas.

Being lazy, i didnt read every single post in this thread...so i dont know if what i have to say has been said already. anyway...


The Merriam-Webster OnLine dictionary defines Consiousness as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself ". I think we can say that computers will be never Truely Conscious because of a computer's way of "thinking". A computer Is aware of nothing. Computers simply perform mathematical functions with 1's and 0's. Thus, Even if a machine develops a unique way with dealing with input, it is still, at its roots, still calculating math problems with ones and zeros.

Nomatter how Complex and unique a responce is from a computer system, all a computer knows is ones and zeros.

What a simple existance that would be, eh?

If computers are to develop into truely consious machines, a new way for "mechanicaly" processing data would have to be developed.
 
Re: My ideas.

Computers simply perform mathematical functions with 1's and 0's. Thus, Even if a machine develops a unique way with dealing with input, it is still, at its roots, still calculating math problems with ones and zeros.

Nomatter how Complex and unique a responce is from a computer system, all a computer knows is ones and zeros.
Click to expand...

Funniest thing that brain is also performing primitive summations on "0" and "1"s. Problem is complexity of connections brain has - its essentially a very very complex assembly of neural nets. So far humanity wasn't even being able to mechanically process such a big amount of connections . But by different estimates it will be able by 2010.
 
most of the argument that computers cannot be conscious has revolved around computers as they are today. To me, its like people who drove model-T's arguing that cars could never surpass a speed of 10 kms/hr. It seems a bit short sighted considering how quickly this field is advancing.
 
Todays computers are even below the dog level. Wait till they get up there. Computer evolution follows Moore's law....:D
 
below dog level is being kind, more like insect or mouse at best.

Then again the speed of their "evolution" in one year would take biological systems a million to achieve. That all hangs on whether we discover a better way to make them of course, with current designs moore's law will only apply for another decade or two.

From the what ive read, as it stands today, computer technology will soon run into a brick wall without a significant change in design and manufacturing techniques. There are a lot of promising concepts though, hopefully a few will turn out to be practical or we'll be stuck (pretty much) with what we have now.

There are a lot of hurdles humanity seems very bad at crossing (hunger, famine, poverty, war, hate ... etc.) but the technological ones seem to be something we excell at so im not too worried (in this area at least).
 
without reading the whole thread, i ask you all a few questions:

Why does it have to think like us to be conscious?

How complex does it have to be to become conscious?
Is my dog conscious? He does this little doggy laugh when i do something wierd!

IMHO, humans have a mass superiority complex. Who's to say that just because we're the dominant species, we're the only ones to be conscious? what if an alien race comes along that can only see gamma rays, and only moves through time (rather than space). They wold never think we were conscious. They would view us as rocks. Our feelings are the result of various levels of dopamine and seratonin in our brains. once nural networks are advanced enough, they too will be conscious.
 
Re: My ideas.

Originally posted by Zxanthaxzantheus

The Merriam-Webster OnLine dictionary defines Consiousness as "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself ". I think we can say that computers will be never Truely Conscious because of a computer's way of "thinking". A computer Is aware of nothing. Computers simply perform mathematical functions with 1's and 0's. Thus, Even if a machine develops a unique way with dealing with input, it is still, at its roots, still calculating math problems with ones and zeros.
Click to expand...

Using this logic, anyone who wanted to be conscious would have to know how they worked. Now, I know that and YOu might know that, but i doubt that many other people do. But THEY're conscious. And what about the new quantum computers they're starting to build? They don't just use ones and zeros, but the spin and level of one electron to process information.
 
If I knew how I worked I would be famous...paper after paper published in neuroscience journals not to mention psycology...I think the important thing is knowing you work, not how you work.

In my opinion AI's are not an IF, but a WHEN.

- KitNyx
 
Obvious Fact

It's easy for Fen to post an obscure, non-self-explanatory argument like he did and then act like anybody who doesn't understand it is stupid but why doesn't he stick his neck out and give a detailed explanation along with an argument in standard form so other people can have a go at cutting the argument down. How is anyone supposed to cut an argument down if no one can understand it?

Am I correct in saying that this is his argument in standard form:

Premiss 1) Consciousness is the nonquantized storage of previous quantized input.
Premiss 2) No digital system will ever have nonquantized storage.
Conclusion) No digital system will be conscious.

Nonquantized storage - Please define
Previous quantized input - Please define
No digital system will ever have nonquantized storage - Please explain why this is not possible.
 
Arguing out of anti-AI arguments

All anti-AI arguments are subject to a simple fact. Anything that is said to be impossible for a machine to do is difficult to argue for when it is known that humans are able to do it. Of course people argue that people are not machines but instead of spewing out claims about what machines can and cannot do people would be better off explaining why there is a difference between humans and machines. Until there comes a point where we can make a clear delineation between humans and machines it is impossible to make statements like:

no digital system will be conscious

because that is question begging. It assumes that machines are not capable of non-quantized information storage. It does not offer an explanation of why they are not capable. Fen if you want to prove your argument then you need to explain why non-quantization is important and why humans are capable of posessing it and machines are not.
 
Computers will never be sentient because modern digitals hardwired CPUs could never be able to think like we do. Try a analog giant feild reporgramable gate matrix. :D
 
But, WellCooked, now you are saying that no one will EVER build a computer with, ahhh...an analog giant feild reporgramable gate matrix(?). How can you say this to be true? How do you know that if this is what is required AI, no one will ever try it? It is impossible to truthfully say that something does not or never will exist.

An example...prove that the internet has not already become complex enough to develop sentience. Prove that it has not already surpassed man in complexity and ingenuity. The fact that we have not seen evidence of it is not proof that it does not exist, only proof that we have not seen evidence for it. With movies like T2 and T3 or the Matrix, would you anounce your existance to the world if you were an AI?

- KitNyx
 
A analog giant field reprogrammable gate matrix is better described as a brain then a computer. :D convention computers will never be sentient, specialize artificial brains will be. Basically a very intensive hardware change is needed in a computer to have intelligent functions, the result being something that’s not a good number crunchier but can think.

To have sentient thought by the way requires the ability to learn from inputs, ouputs and feedback, the project from that knowledge and to be aware of ones self existence. A computer cannot learn (except by software which is very slow and inefficient) a computer is not self aware: it only does as commanded and as such cannot think or plan.
 
Last edited:
The premise for this thread is likely known to be bullshit by its founder. A sweeping comment like "computers will never be conscious" is necessarily based in ignorance, since what is possible in all of time is not knowable at the current point in time. Thread moot.

Hypotheticals are fun though, so have all the moot fun you want! :)
 
I am not sure why you think we are not machines. Even if you believe we have a soul, our bodies are still complex organic machine doing what they are programmed to do. There is no evidence that our minds cannot be replicated. What would make the relica more or less than a machine? I computer is nothing more than a machine that computes.

- KitNyx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top