3 ms·

> Machines that learn, sure, but conscious machines, no way. So what is the source of consciousness then? If it is something supernatural, like a soul, then ye

> Machines that learn, sure, but conscious machines, no way. So what is the source of consciousness then? If it is something supernatural, like a soul, then yes reproducing consciousness in a machine is impossible. But if it is ultimately just a biological process, no matter how complicated, then it could be simulated given true understanding and a fast enough/big enough computer? I'm not sure there is a third possibility?

Maursault 4y ago
> So what is the source of consciousness then? Healthy brain is the source of consciousness. > But if it is ultimately just a biological process, no matter how complicated, then it could be simulated given true understanding and a fast enough/big enough computer? Though commonly referred to as such in metaphor, computers are not brains. Computers also have hard limitations that are very different from the limitations of biological brains. Maybe it is possible to accurately simulate a healthy brain but is unattainable due to physical and economic limitations. Then again, maybe even if we exhausted the global economy and every natural resource to build a planet-sized computer and simulated every minuscule part of a human brain, every cell, every neuron, and all the electro-chemical interactions, and it still wouldn't be conscious, maybe that is a far better result than if it could be conscious. What are we even doing? I ask you, what is the goal and benefit here? How would that be better than the unconscious AI we already have and the automatons we can already produce now, but haven't? For a time, computers will get smaller, faster, more powerful, but if we haven't already achieved Strong AI with the largest fastest computers available today, in the future if room-sized clusters can fit in a cell phone, how can we expect them to be conscious? And if the room sized computers of the future can be made conscious, how will that benefit anyone? > I'm not sure there is a third possibility? Well, imagine having two separate conscious brains, the one in your head and another somewhere else that is also physically a part of you. Maybe we'll alter our species to evolve these separate brains, I just don't know what the point would be, as it would not at all be like multiprocessing or parallel computing, but more like slavery.
- jungturk 4y ago
  A sustainable process that can evolve healthy brains is the source of consciousness.
- melagonster 4y ago
  old argument talk computer is more faster than us, if we can build civilization in ten thousand years, maybe we give AI more time and waiting for it. but the environment of current AI actually looks like slavery.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Time does not solve the impossible. No matter how much time we spend attempting to make an algorithm sentient, an algorithm can never be sentient any more than a recipe can be sentient.

Maursault 4y ago

> So what is the source of consciousness then? Healthy brain is the source of consciousness. > But if it is ultimately just a biological process, no matter how complicated, then it could be simulated given true understanding and a fast enough/big enough computer? Though commonly referred to as such in metaphor, computers are not brains. Computers also have hard limitations that are very different from the limitations of biological brains. Maybe it is possible to accurately simulate a healthy brain but is unattainable due to physical and economic limitations. Then again, maybe even if we exhausted the global economy and every natural resource to build a planet-sized computer and simulated every minuscule part of a human brain, every cell, every neuron, and all the electro-chemical interactions, and it still wouldn't be conscious, maybe that is a far better result than if it could be conscious. What are we even doing? I ask you, what is the goal and benefit here? How would that be better than the unconscious AI we already have and the automatons we can already produce now, but haven't? For a time, computers will get smaller, faster, more powerful, but if we haven't already achieved Strong AI with the largest fastest computers available today, in the future if room-sized clusters can fit in a cell phone, how can we expect them to be conscious? And if the room sized computers of the future can be made conscious, how will that benefit anyone? > I'm not sure there is a third possibility? Well, imagine having two separate conscious brains, the one in your head and another somewhere else that is also physically a part of you. Maybe we'll alter our species to evolve these separate brains, I just don't know what the point would be, as it would not at all be like multiprocessing or parallel computing, but more like slavery.

jungturk 4y ago
A sustainable process that can evolve healthy brains is the source of consciousness.
melagonster 4y ago
old argument talk computer is more faster than us, if we can build civilization in ten thousand years, maybe we give AI more time and waiting for it. but the environment of current AI actually looks like slavery.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Time does not solve the impossible. No matter how much time we spend attempting to make an algorithm sentient, an algorithm can never be sentient any more than a recipe can be sentient.