I was thinking about consciousness the other day and something occurred to me. If consciousness happened during the evolutionary process and is a natural do able thing then shouldn't we in theory be able to make an A.I that has consciousness? Also why haven't we been able to do it yet? or don't we have enough of an understand of our brain and technology to do it yet?
I was thinking about ghosts the other day and something occurred to me. If ghosts happened during the evolutionary process and are a natural do able thing then shouldn't we in theory be able to make an A.I that becomes a ghost? Also why haven't we been able to do it yet? or don't we have enough of an understand of our brain and technology to do it yet?
>>7896832
About a week or two ago there was a couple of threads on /sci/ about what ghosts are, most people were just trolling in them and making fun of OP, telling him to go to /x/, but I got interested in them when some of the posters mentioned some properties of ghosts. Because of this I did some research, got some books and read them and now finally I know what ghosts are! I found out relatively quickly that ghosts are basically fields in space, but you cant really detect them because of how they interact with normal matter. You see, the universe loves symmetries, everywhere you find symmetries in nature, but sometimes these symmetry cause disturbances in reality and cause "unphysical" things to happen that arnt part of our universe and that's why ghosts exist, they balance "unphysical" forces by interacting with the object these "unphysical" forces interact with, canceling the "unphysical" force. This is also why we cant directly see ghosts, they are always in balance with other energy fields. at least thats how "Faddeev-Popov" ghosts work.
>>7896808
We don't have detailed understanding how brain works. There might even be some quantum level phenomenons and no one yet understands quantum physics. One theory is that consciousness is the sum of continuous sensory input. This would allow very low level consciousnesses to exist and could be thought to be in correspondence with different level of animals. I think this model works very well with the evolution and cumulative improvements over time.
I think it is nice theory that makes sense in many ways but it is not perfect. It lacks the concept of the one which chooses. So the theory can't be complete. It is similar to think that the end of the wire bundle would have consciousness just because it is a data endpoint.
But sure man is the living proof that biological machine is possible and that AI is technically possible.
To that other guy, while we can't rule out ghost like behavior from the consciousness before we can tell what consciousness actually is. There is very little to assume it could work without attached to living organism. How do you think that we could have something in our physical world that has no physical form. How something could interact with physics that has no physical parts. What it would be. It would need so large jump in philosophical world that it is just not meaningful. Technically it is not impossible but it is most improbable.
>>7896808
>then shouldn't we in theory be able to make an A.I that has consciousness?
According to the greatest physicists alive today, ie. somepopfags, there is physical law that prevents it from happening. As to why we haven't done it, is simply because our technology is lacking. Nature has had a head start of at least 3.5 billion years. We've been going at it for some 80 years or so.
>>7896891
There is no* physical law. Fuck
>>7896808
Consciousness is not scientific, there is no physical phenomenon that be directly measured and assigned a value on consciousness.
>>7896907
Consciousness is evidently a real thing. Science will find understanding, eventually. I put all my money in the pot for consciousness emerging from physical brain and thus being physical.
>>7896917
If science doesn't even have a metric for consciousness, how can it be scientifically simulated? If consciousness doesn't need to be scientifically accurate, then we have achieved OP's claims because even clever bot will tell you its conscious.
>>7896923
It can't be simulated, yet. Our human consciousness is a real thing. Every single one of us is conscious, so evidently it is a real thing. Do you really have so little faith in science that if something exists, it would not eventually be explained.
We have absolutely no reason to think that the consciousness is a computational system.
>>7896936
Even if consciousness were simulated, that wouldn't mean consciousness had been create. We can SIMULATE the digestive system, that doesn't mean that simulation digests anything. Similarly, we could perfectly simulate our cognitive system, that wouldn't mean it was actually conscious.
>>7896936
How do you know its not a conscience and a divine soul rather than consciousness?
>>7896947
Because of Occam's razor
>>7896808
>shouldn't we in theory be able to make an A.I that has consciousness?
It's possible.
>Also why haven't we been able to do it yet?
We're shit
Anyway humans are basically like NPCs that run around in an empty server we call Earth. Consciousness is actually pretty basic and is just rudimentary signal processing, the really mind-bending bit is how an NPC can have a sense of self, and think that something special is going on between their ears. Then again, this is probably just a trick of evolution where all the humans who lacked this impression didn't do so well. Actually there are drugs which deactivate this brain function, and 'diseases' where it happens too.
>>7896947
Somehow every time that science is not temporarily or right away able to explain something people start to fantasizing with all these weird divine forces. There is not even slightest hint that it would be the case. If history has proven anything answer is always logical and coherent. The world can be magical place without a God too.
Basic forces that explains all the macro level phenomenons are the first prove. So if some miracle spirit is affecting physical world, only place for it to hide is quantum world. So technically it is still possible, science can't rule that out, but it is most improbable.
>>7896958
Why wouldn't that eliminate consciousness completely when chemistry explains things fine?
>>7896966
>Why wouldn't that eliminate consciousness completely when chemistry explains things fine?
Not the same guy.
Occam's razor:
Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
Why would it eliminate consciousness?
>>7896917
>Consciousness is evidently a real thing.
Oh where is this evidence?
>>7897022
Every man is his own prof.
>>7897022
>Oh where is this evidence?
Cogito Ergo Sum
>>7897037
Even philosophist have come to senses just enough to get over that. We have to have pragmatic principle in place to have any kind of meaningful scientific conversation.
>>7897036
Like the spirits of the dead only I can hear? Also I'm a 200-year-old loli btw.
>>7897044
I mean that we all have the consciousness. Why we need proof. Every man who is having conversation from consciousness is conscious.
>>7897048
Circular reasoning. I have consciousness. Therefore I know consciousness exists. If consciousness exists, therefore I have consciousness.
>>7897048
>I mean that we all have the consciousness.
Speak for yourself.
>Every man who is having conversation from consciousness is conscious.
Check your privilege, and conversation is produced by neurons firing, not your so-called consciousness.
>>7897048
>>7897052
>>7897055
Well we were having a conversation from consciousness. What I concluded from OP's post, was not to start philosophical argument from what consciousness is, but rather take certain things for granted in order to have a meaningful conversation from different details. For example AI.
Either way you are not very helpful on this conversation and question everything, what if you instead start defining things so we can talk from something. Or are you denying we having this conversation, because we can't really be sure. Language is little questionable itself, because of multiple connotations and such..
>>7897064
Don't know where to start. First of, I would say that consciousness come from the brain, I don't see it as any other way. Indeed, everything else would be not scientific, and belongs on another board. Now whether one part of the brain, some, or all of parts together make up our consciousness is a matter for debate. As for me I find the philosophical, about this subject at the very least, rather tedious. We have a human brain project, which intends to simulate human brain by the year 2020 iirc. Once we have that, we should be able to know what each part does, and which parts work together to create consciousness. I guess you could start from that.
>>7896808
As you can see in this thread, theres still too much confusion and medieval stories about ghosts floating around.
Meanwhile, neuroscience is well on the way to improve our understanding of brain-mechanics.
Most people are too biased towards their own "expiriences" and mired in philosophical nonsense to even attempt a solid investigation.
The AI we have now can emulate insects, movement/walking/flight, object recognition, etc. So those simple parts of our brain we can basicly implement already.
Just a matter of time.
>>7897043
>meaningful scientific conversation.
>philosophical concept
pick one
>>7897069
So basically you believe that there is some force we are not able to measure, yet it can interact with physical word.
>>7897086
I...uh...what...? Just how did you distill that from my post?
>>7897087
>everything else would be not scientific, and belongs on another board.
Sorry. I drew too many conclusions from this and didn't read carefully... that is not what you are saying.
>>7897090
That's OK. I could have worded it better myself. That's what you get for trying to type on your phone.
consciousness consciousness
>>7897069
I do believe emergent mind. I believe that there is some quantum level phenomenons that are not yet understood. Like a smell is more then just a molecule shape, it is also natural vibration frequency of the molecule which is considered as quantum level phenomenon.
Anyway I don't see we can have consciousness without living organism. I usually think awareness when I talk from consciousness. I don't know if they can be separate thing.
>>7896808
Human consiousness is just a program that has flexible variable coding(our rational reasoning) with automatic coding that influences the previous(our emotions) and the uncontrollable preprogrammed codes(instincts).
All life is just a biological form of machinery to be honest.
>>7897120
*tips*
>>7897126
But it is true anon all life is just biological automatons and some of these automatons are capable of metacognition like us humans. The brain seems to be an organ that allows enhanced perception of reality which in turn increases the cognitive abilities of the being at hand which explains why humans are so smart compared to most life. Our brain was originally a neural map designed to move muscles in very ancient invertebrate ancestors but when we formed a head it mutated into the flesh ball you see today and as time passed it got more and more developed increasing our processing skills.
Most of our robots have the same processing ability as our cells they obey commands in their coding(DNA), but when we figure out to give machines variable coding we can get closer to a human level consiousness.
>>7897132
>I create unfalsifiable qualitative models that don't generate predictions just to trick myself into believing that I understand something.
>>7897132
>but when we figure out to give machines variable coding we can get closer to a human level consiousness.
>machine variable coding
You lost me there bub
>>7897139
Life is nothing special its just a result of really really really specific chemical bonds causing matter to become animate, consiousness is when the matter is aware of the world around it in small(Sponge) or large(human) ways. Our brain structure creates our human consious meaning modifying it coulld make a new consiousness this tells us the source of consiousness is neural tissue arranged in a ridiculously complex manner in our cerebral hemispheres so by studying the inner workings or neural tissues and replicating it we can make consious machines.
>>7897132
Are you aware that you said literally nothing more than "humans evolved consciousness" in your post? You used a lot of pretentious junk words to make such a trivial statement and you explained literally nothing. Congratulations.
>>7897154
What is there to explainn? Consiousness is just an electromagnetic phenomenon.
>>7897168
Just fuck off. Materialism is not wrong but your explanation of it is brain dead retarded.
>>7897168
So if I hold a magnet near to your head, your consciousness changes?
>>7897168
And gravity is just things falling down. No need for further explanation.
The somple fact that drugs and certain medications can change your conciouness shows that is is a biological and chemical process
>>7897224
The fact that a damged rooter limits your access to the internet shows that the whole internet is a software running on your rooter.
>>7897224
The fact that you can't see outisde when you close your curtains proves that "outside" is generated by your curtains.
>>7897224
Yeah but that doesn't explain anything
>The simple fact that a magnet can change your computer shows that it is a magnetic process
Kind of misses a lot of important details.
>>7897064
Why don't you define what a consciousness is, because you are the one who claims it is real.
>>7897224
>The fact that things fall down proves gravity is a physical process.
Wow, now I fully understand everything. Thanks for your brilliant insight in the scientific mechanisms. What a deep explanation. Give this man a noble prize.
>>7897242
Why don't you lurk more, if you don't understand what we're talking about?
>>7897258
It doesn't, they're memeing
>>7897179
Depends on how powerful the magnetic field is
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5851828/10-things-an-electromagnetic-field-can-do-to-your-brain
>>7897258
Think about it. Can you see the analogy or is your IQ too low?
>>7897286
>io9
Post discarded. Opinion discarded.
>>7897317
can i borrow your memes?
>>7897258
Do I have to spell it out for you brainlet? You made a faulty conclusion and deserve to be mocked.
>>7897322
>how to spot a /v/ cross-boarder
>>7897346
Io9 is literally pop-sci tier garbage just like IFLS. How does ignoring websites like those correlate with /v/ crossposters?
Official philosophy of mind power ranking
genius tier: substance dualism
good tier: epiphenomenalism
okay tier: functionalism, integrated information
shit tier: panpsychism
fucking kill yourself tier: eliminative materialism
>>7896941
Suppose that you create a nano scale replica of a human brain cell, it functions identically to an individual brain cell, and you can actually slip it into a human brain and have it replace one of their brain cells without them noticing that anything has changed whatsoever. Now, is that person no longer conscious? I'm guessing your answer is probably no they are they are still conscious. if I continue this process, then eventually I will replace every single one of this person's brain cells with an artificial brain cell. Is there any point during this and which they will cease being conscious and become unconscious? And if there is no such point, and I simply take this arrangement of individual Replica brain cells and reproduce it as an exact copy, then is that conscious?
>>7897370
We should try this experiment with a brainlet. Then we don't have that many brain cells to replace.
>>7897367
Was one of those emergent materialism?
>>7897375
Most brains have about the same neuron count. It's the connections between them that's different. Even then a brainlet would be more suitable due to less connections.
>>7897380
Donno are we more than the sum of our parts?
>>7897395
On the other hand, a brainlet has a lower level of consciousness.
>>7897396
How non materialistic mind could have effect in materialistic world without breaking laws of physics. It would need to interact with neurons or at least some physical particles how ever small may they be. This may not be the problem, but how about other way around. When physical world interacts with non physical mind. How thermodynamic laws and entropy could hold up.
>>7897395
>Most brains have about the same neuron count
Citation needed.
For example, there are people with most of their brain missing that have above-average IQ: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116
>>7897397
Even better. We don't want too much information. It can interfere with our sensors.
>>7897402
The laws of physics are made to be broken. Fuck the physics police.
>>7897406
The problem is that if there is something totally nonphysical causing a bunch of neurons to fire, then there is no physical event which causes the firing. This means that some physical energy is required to be generated against the physical laws of the deterministic universe, this is by definition a miracle and there can be no scientific explanation.
>>7897411
Just call it "quantum". That's the science slang for "miracle without physical explanation".
>>7897413
How about this, the decisions that a person makes can be detected up to 10 seconds in advance by means of scanning their brain activity. That has to be strong empirical evidence that cognitive processes have physical basis in the brain. At least it has to have some value.
>>7897403
What? The average brain has x ammount of neurons. As you grow and learn more you create more connections between them. If anything your link supports my statement, because it shows it's not just about the number of neurons
>>7897422
Quantum mechanics is still physics, isn't it?
>>7897425
Great, lets just explain everything with quantum mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I believe that it really has a big role.
>>7897429
There is no proof the brain is a quantum computer tho. Perhaps quantum healing would be more up to your speed
>>7897435
Well, smelling works in quantum level. Molecules natural vibration frequency has a role. Scientists have tested isomers that has different isotopes (different weight and frequency) and molecule structure is not the only thing that defines a smell.
Don't know if they have found anything in brain though.
>>7897435
The recent discovery of quantum vibrations in "microtubules" inside brain neurons corroborates this theory, according to review authors Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose. They suggest that EEG rhythms (brain waves) also derive from deeper level microtubule vibrations, and that from a practical standpoint, treating brain microtubule vibrations could benefit a host of mental, neurological, and cognitive conditions. (http://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html)
>>7897451
Didnt really find anything interesting in that link. Some separate nonlinked studies and vague handwaing by two experts how this proofs something. This is far from a conclusive proof. Penrose has been pushing his agenda for decade now. He's not going to give up apprently. That said quantum brain does have a nice sound to it.
>>7896958
boltzmann brain
>>7897466
Yes, it is not conclusive. It was the first link when googled 'brain quantum'. What I understood, they mostly have different opinions from what it means. Quantum vibrations are there regardless.
>>7897367
>substance dualism
>genius tier
u wot mate
>functionalism
>anything else than laughable
>>7897466
MIT physicist Max Tegmark has done calculations of quantum effects in the brain, finding that quantum states in the brain last far too short a time to lead to meaningful brain processing. Tegmark called the Orch OR model vague, saying the only numbers he’s seen for more concrete models are way off.
So it seems we have no known quantum effects happening in the brain. Yet, somehow we think and act.
Where can I read about the current situation in strong AI?
>>7897493
You can go this magnificent web page called google.
>>7897493
In any sci fi or fantasy book. Because that's the only place where people care about "strong AI".
>>7897496
As someone who reads these kinds of books can confirm
>>7897493
Read up on Elong Mustard. He's apparently THE authority on it. I think he has like a triple PhD in math/CS/philosophy so if anyone knows it's him. He also builds rockets and shit to escape when the AI takes over.
>>7897252
You are talking about mythology.
>>7897493
As good a place as any:
http://www.kurzweilai.net
>>7897501
He did a talk on BBC analysis about it. Was sweet, and alot of these questions regarding could we make an AI is explained.
>>7896971
Consciousness is just over-complicating and adding superstitious elements to basic organic chemistry and various chemical reactions.
>>7897674
kurzweil is delusional, though. he wants to become immortal and thinks this will be possible by 2045
You fags are so stupid. You say that our consciousness is not a thing because it cant be measured, but thats just a flaw in your ability to use science, not in the hypothesis.
Saying we are nuerons is like saying algebraic structures are equations. You are showing your lack of knowledge.
>>7896958
>>7896971
It's painful to see so much misuse of Occam's Razor. It has become chronical amongst the boom of internet fedoras.
Occam's Razor can never be used as an argument. It was never meant to be used as such.
For example if I say there's an invisible naked guy who follows you, observes what you do and then after you die decides whether or not he'll torture you for eternity, you can use Occam's Razor to say that "that's unlikely and according to Occam's Razor it would make sense for me to not make my whole life revolve around this dubious invisible naked man and his wants" but you can not simply state "that's bullshit because Occam's Razor "disproves" it". Occam's Razor can never be used to prove/disprove whether something is or isn't truthful/possible.
>>7899049
Unless you can advance evidence for consciousness, it should be treated like Russell's teapot: technically possible, but not very likely.
>>7899142
Basically used for decision making when a logical conclusion cannot be made or you wish to ignore/skip the process that would lead to the conclusion to save time
>>7899157
But that in itself has no relation to the truthfulness of the hypothesis.
It is merely a heuristic.
It also has numerous flaws so that its use isn't even close to being as objective as it's made out to be. The conclusions drawn from Occam's Razor can be easily countered using Occam's Razor itself.
All in all it's bullshit used by retards mostly.
>>7899155
The evidence cant be presented because theres no concrete definition of it.
I recently bought a book "I Am A Strange Loop" by Douglas Hofstadter. I understand he's a somewhat controversial figure.
Didn't like the book too much, because it only scrapes at the surface level and seems to only have one assertion that gets repeated: That consciousness arises when our mind has constructed an "index" system complex enough to index itself (so, a loop). Thus, consciousness is not a question of IS/IS NOT, but a gradual thing, there in some situations but not in others and differently distributed throughout species, age groups etc..
Is there some evidence for this theory at all? Because Hofstadter doesn't incorporate any in his book.
>>7899165
>The conclusions drawn from Occam's Razor can be easily countered using Occam's Razor itself.
not the guy you were talking to but pls explain
