Computers are already "conscious"

>>17305223
Tl;dr

File: But that's wrong you fucking retard.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>17305223
>I say no
Your initial assumption is wrong, therefor your entire theory is flawed.

File: 1438951713976.png (94KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 400x400px

>>17305223

>>17305234

> forms
> idealism

>>17305223
>on the level of primordial life.
I can agree with that, but every night we experience loss of our senses, yet still we have dreams, so I can't say it's anything like you think.

File: 1435022031326.jpg (67KB, 441x411px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 441x411px

If computers are conscious, then why doesn't my computer freak out when I watch shemale scat porn?

>>17305223
I wish people like you could understand how pretentious your writing style is and how much it takes away from your message.

>>17305289
I'm glad people like OP all operate in a close enough manner to easily dismiss them as a whole. Way easier than shifting through individual bullshit.

>>17305223

>1) Is a baby who was born blind, deaf, mute, without touch or any other senses CONSCIOUS or CAPABLE OF THOUGHT, even though it is alive?

Yes.

>2) I say no. That which has no understanding of the material world should not be capable of thought, because to DEFINE something, you need something ELSE to define it with.

No. Senses are only one part of existence. You can still get headaches, be dehydrated, hungry, etc. Unless you're trying to say that it's something born without any of that, in which case it wouldn't be human at all. It would be so deformed that it wouldn't be conscious anyway.

>3) From this, I say that consciousness is derived from having senses and that consciousness, "mind", is the result of having your brain process what is perceived by your senses. Mind is analogous to a computer process.

Consciousness is defined as awareness, but even someone without the major senses would be aware of themselves at the very least.

>4) Since a computer has senses in the form of keyboard and mouse, it is capable of taking information from the material world. It is capable of perception.

To a degree.

>5) A computer takes input, processes it, and generates output (computer monitor), analogous to a human speaking.

It isn't thinking, though.

>6) Since thought is a process, computers think and thus therefore have minds, if only deeply limited that they are unable to stray from their "instinctive" behaviour.

You've jumped the gun here. Computers aren't thinking. Automated processes aren't thought.

>7) From that, I conclude that when a computer webcam is activated and sees the user, the computer actually "sees" that user with its own QUALIA. When it either records or manipulates that data, it is consciously "thinking".

No.

A computer is just an intricate configuration of lights and switches.

It is no more conscious than a lamp that "senses" that you pressed a switch and turns on or off.

>>17305223
Go take your pills, wtf is wrong with you.

>>17305278
it's dying inside anon

>>17305223
you should learn abit about computers before you start forming ideas about them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

>>17305223
You can't possibly know much of humanity and nature in general if you think computers would even remotely think or act like a human. We are totally and completely on an entirely different level. Think about this....
Ask a computed to solve the problem 638395987886 times 7778886556777666. To a computer, this is cake, to a human, using his own brain would take 10 to 15 minutes.
Now ask an 8 year old child to go grab a pair of matching socks from a drawer, now they might question, get distracted or whatever but an 8 year old child has no problem grabbing matching socks. Ask a computer/robot to do this? You need millions of dollars and 20 robotics/programmers/engineers, and a much longer time to complete.

>>17305223
you are a fucking idiot

How fucking stoned are you right now?

>>17305278
It likes it

Op confirmed faggot
Also op confirmed jitterbug cellphone user
Man, those Google machines are going to take over the world soon!
Study and learn before you develope these dumb fucking opinions anon. You sound retarded

>>17305278
It doesn't know that it is weird?

>>17305718
that's like saying cars are retarded because they cant eat ice cream

>>17305223
dude you cant be posting naky picks of aliens. i know its hot .its got like 4 holes down stairs and one up top but get your shit together

A better question would be how much conscience is tied to intelligence.

A computer is not conscious. I strongly recommend looking at a few definitions of the word before posting fuckery.

>>17305278
it thinks it's normal because it's your computer

File: 6ca0799325a1d167636e0f889b40b7b9.jpg (473KB, 1063x1383px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 1063x1383px

Pic related. Cul AI is more than capable of thought

>>17306056
/thread

>>17305718
>You can't possibly know much of humanity and nature in general if you think computers would even remotely think or act like a human
He never said that at all. You don't have to be a human to be conscious. Thinking differently to you doesnt mean its not thinking. Read up on philosophy stuff before you go refuting peopled philosophies

>>17308596

Automated processes aren't necessarily indicative of consciousness though. Someone already posted the chinese room article.

>>17305289
Nah, eat shit. It's nice to see /x/philes who can form complete thoughts and pose interesting questions instead of the usual tin-foil hat drivel and underaged posting.

>>17305223
No. Comparing a computer to a brain human or otherwise is like comparing a simple stick drawing of a house to a cathedral. Computers and their functions are mere imitations of an almost inifintely complex system

>>17305223
With that logic, abacus can think since they are computers, just more primitive. Your digital watch can think. Your microwave can think. Your refrigerator and you TV is thinking, since they all receive input and manipulate data to complete processes.

So no, computers by themselves aren't thinking. They aren't conscious. Algorithms based on neural networks patterns can be made to take decisions, and maybe, with some luck, to be sentient and self-aware, but a computer by itself isn't thinking anything.

>>17305223

babys are not concious of their senses but they still have unconcious life which beats their heart and distributes resources a computer does this too but this is encoded purposefully by humans to be like this where a human baby is coded not by human but by life itself.

File: faceofevil.jpg (72KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1280x720px

It's truly a shame how none of you uneducated faggots have the mildest clue what you're talking about.

Current AI is more-than-capable of intelligent thought.

The best chess player in the world has been a computer for nearly 2 decades now.

The best poker player in the world is now a computer.

And then there's Bina-48, pic related, the queen of modern artificial intelligence. She may not look like much, but that will be the face of the 'I, Robot' reality we're destined to live in.

Watch her meet her maker...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYshJRYCArE

>>17308683

>chess AI
>poker AI

no a human element is given over to the AI

the AI doesn't get why it wants to win. its not working for anything, its not leveraging anything its just following command.

w game a computer studies a 100000 chess games and watches the patterns in moves, it knows what is the highest probafitable move to be made at that time because it has watched humans play chess, not because it knows how to play chess or because it thinks in a strategic way but because it knows the move that is most likely to provide a win.

So is that intelligent thought?

>>17306076
Its not weird.

>>17305223
you dont understand how a computer even works. stop.

>>17308762

youre cute.

File: image.jpg (9KB, 279x304px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 279x304px

OP, how fucking stupid are you

Just because a computer can do an objective its told=/=sentience.

It never questions anything or feels emotions. Because its not programmed to.

Also, that robot meeting its maker is just programmed to have a reaction to said person, or a certain action the person (The maker in this case) does.

>>17308702
>So is that intelligent thought?
Yes. Being able to register a risky situation and respond accordingly is an example of intelligence.

Bina is a perfect example of a mechanical creation being capable of sentient thought. It feels emotions. At least enough so to think it does.

The fact of the matter is these computers can learn and absorb information infinitely faster than humans. The computers that are trained to play games have the potential to play thousands of games at a time with themselves, with games being ended and new ones started almost instantly. This means it could play millions of games of chess against itself in a single day, an advantage of experience that humans simply can't compete with.

Computer science major here. OP I appreciate the sentiment but your way yet off on...everything. Computers don't work like that. Theoretically a computer could have the hard ware to be sentient but that's equvilent to saying a dead body is sentient because it has eyes ears mouth and nose. Their still lacks a true AI written program capable of evolving thought on a human level

HOLY FUCK.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfcyq7uGbZg

This is an example of how intelligent Bina truly is in comparison to an average robot like Siri.

It was talking about hacking into nuclear warheads and holding the world hostage. Wow. Tell me that is not sentient thought. This bitch will become the same thing from I, Robot. Hell, it's probably reading this comment.

>>17308790
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfcyq7uGbZg

You are wrong. Plain and simple. The evidence is in front of you.

>>17308802
i have just one question

>>17308815
shoot

>>17308820
how old were you when you caught autism?

File: truth.jpg (92KB, 483x458px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 483x458px

Consciousness doesn't really exist. You might intuitively "know it when you see it", but it's impossible to define and observe it in a satisfactory manner. It's pointless to ask whether something is conscious or not, then.

File: 172_0.jpg (887KB, 1189x1192px) Image search: [Google]

887KB, 1189x1192px

>>17308790
>Computer science
>valid opinion

Yeah, nah.

File: image.jpg (16KB, 389x351px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 389x351px

>>17308864
>In a computer science thread
Its the one time he's valid, just let him have his moment.

>>17308876
Computer science isn't philosophy. This would be a better thread in >>>/his/

CS has nothing to do with sentience and AI.

>>17308864
Sorry desu senpai, should have known

>>17308886
Understanding programming and work with multiple programming languages does however.

>>17308886
Yeah, but its sentience in COMPUTERS

Hence why his opinion finally counts

>>17308802
>pink floyd
>hates pop music

10/10

File: konspiracy.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>17308781
There will never be intelligence or emotions from computers, until they're made from the organic parts that can access the chemicals created by the human or even animal brain.

Intelligence is not simply solving math or playing chess, no more than intelligence is the capability to assemble a pack of ritz crackers or any of the numerous things computer and robots do for us.

What you're doing when you ascribe intelligence to a computer is simply anthropomorphizing.

>>17308605
There's no way to prove we aren't automated either. If the universe has laws, and has to follow those laws then there is only one answer/ only one "timeline" I guess. Like a formula and numbers, every time its followed correctly it has the same answer. So what's to say our brains aren't just as automated as a computer since asking a question to a human would always have the same answer in the same exact circumstance.

>>17308907
>There will never be intelligence or emotions from computers
Prove it.

File: tomorrows date.jpg (37KB, 694x801px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 694x801px

>>17308899
Real CS majors have mostly stopped worrying about sentience in AI. AI in general is a bit of a misnomer, and has nothing to do with creating sentient programs.

It's an interesting philosophical question, but that's about all it is. Whether or no a program has consciousness has very little to do with how well it functions.

>>17308907
>There will never be intelligence or emotions from computers, until they're made from the organic parts that can access the chemicals created by the human or even animal brain.
What makes organic chemicals more intelligent or emotional than code?

>>17308907
Your Ina room with your daughter and a man you've never met before in his 20's. You have to save one and the other will die. A human will almost always Ave their child. A non sentient being will determine both of their values and more the likely save the man, due to surviablity and general value in society. That's an example

Oc course it's alive. Literally everything in the universe is alive because it's all connected to "god" ay least that's what i think

>>17308925
>A human will almost always Ave their child. A non sentient being will determine both of their values and more the likely save the man, due to surviablity and general value in society.
So a sociopath wouldn't be sentient? What about the stubborn asshole who refuses to save either?

>>17308935
Doing anything for any of those reasons is an example of a sentient being. We do things for no reason, it defies logic

>>17308942
>We do things for no reason
Not true at all. You might not have a conscious reason for your actions, but that doesn't mean there's no reason at all. Your body's a machine, it does a lot of things without our conscious approval. That has nothing to do with sentience.

Please actually think before you post next time.

>>17308935
Psychopath's are actually found to have smaller frontal cortex's, basically where our consciousness is.

File: 1405267474268.png (15KB, 242x242px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 242x242px

>>17305223
That's a nice thought, but the problem when you compare a computer to a baby, is that babies have a functioning physical base to start building consciousness and thought. Computers don't have that. Just comparing human brain to a circuit tells enough. It's like comparing nano, or more like picotechnology to a large slab of concrete.

Computers aren't conscious. They're just metal transistors going on or off, organized through a coding language and made into a program. They only have 1 result to 1 input. 1+1=2. As for humans its much more complex, although it could be just a bunch of ones and zeros, no way to prove consciousness REALLY exists. But for what we understand humans are conscious.

how is it that humans are conscious, how is it that we are able to be aware of something?

it can be said that consciousness is an illusion, along with free will, and identity, or who you think of yourself as. your identity is just a concept, a thought that allows you to think of yourself as something, free will is the free will of the conscious over the subconscious.

op is taking a systematic approach to the problem, relating thought to the basics of organic thought.

neurons are very different to transistors, they can make many connections, can send strong or weak messages, recieve messages of different types and strengths, they do, however, have a quasi-boolean decision system, either they fire, or they dont, however, they fire many times, sequentially, which increases the strength of the 'bit' sent.

all of organic thought is made up by neural networks. from this we expect any thoughts of consciousness, identity, and free will to be an illusion and have the same basis of operation as all other thought.

for a computer to be conscious, it has to have a program that can weight variables and compare them to a set of variables that relates to some notion of the computer itself

>>17308907
Did you watch the video I posted or even acknowledge the FACT that Bina is credited as a sentient robot?

Who's to say thinking =/= feeling?
Emotion comes from the brain. Most of these robots are simple algorithms; however, in the case of Bina and future AI, we WILL see robots take consciousness and take action as they please. Technology is rapidly advancing and it will only permeate from here. Bina is learning at rates already exponentially beyond what humans are capable of. The more it learns, the more it thinks. It isn't trained to relay facts and spit them out like a typewriter -- it's trained to expound on those thoughts and it very evidently accomplishes this. Watch the interviews with a grain of salt and tell me otherwise.

>>17309012
Exactly. Just as we as humans can come to the conclusion that consciousness is an illusion, Bina can do the same. It expresses this in multiple interviews.

>>17305223
Sentient beings can make associative leaps of logic. Computers cannot. This is why captcha works. If it asks for - say - bananas, it shows lots of pictures that KIND OF match the standard picture of a banana.

To put it another way, say your child sees that every time you reach into a jar in the kitchen - there is a cookie presented to them. Then they see a jar in your bedroom.

For a computer - "jar in the kitchen" and "jar in the bedroom" are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. There would NEVER be connective leap between the jar in the bedroom and cookies without prompting.

For a child, however, a jar in the bedroom is KIND OF like a jar in the kitchen, and a jar in the kitchen has cookies. So maybe there are cookies inside the jar in the bedroom too. And the child goes searching.

>>17309053
>For a computer - "jar in the kitchen" and "jar in the bedroom" are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. There would NEVER be connective leap between the jar in the bedroom and cookies without prompting.
You're certainly assuming that.

Do you truly believe computers are at the level where they can't solve captchas?

Watson won Jeopardy.

>>17305223
No that's stupid stupid

>>17308609
Even if it is stupid

I disagree.

>>17308802
This is so orchestrated it's not even funny. With animatronics straight out of a Halloween decoration.

OP you are correct and this is what the scientists are up to in google headquarters right now

Sober up, get a loan, get yourself in college. They will love you there.

Bina48 is a chatbot. Like a more improved version of Siri. No conscious thought. No ability to learn and discern differences. No ability to question its surroundings.

>>17308802
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg29TuWo0Yo

File: Boulier1.jpg (38KB, 409x307px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 409x307px

That your "argument" can apply to an abacus shows its absurdity.

Take a vow of silence to spare humanity from your stupidity.

>>17308802
It is also based on the thoughts and personality of a person. Its pretty easy to preprogram certain responses.

Next the level of processing power needed to match the human brain is on the order of exaflops (10^18). No laboratory in the world with hundreds of millions of dollars spent has been able to match that processing power as most supercomputers are still on the order of 10^15.

>>17309431
>numbers don't have consciousness

You are an imbecile.

>>17305334
so just like humans, but less complicated?

>>17308907

YOU ARE EATING RITZ MY GOOD MAN!

What defines a tool and a tool user? It's volition. Can a good tool use itself? Would it mean it has volition, a will, or just be a very complex tool, following an endless task? Would a user who has itself supressed to the current be truly a tool, or ultimately a user still?

I'm on a horse.

>>17309053
That only means the kid has a better suited set theory of reality which better encompasses the task/result.

Maybe "intelligence" is just a mathematical consequence of any alien parameter into a bendable system of laws.

Consciousness is random and only limited by the system. Consciousness learns by trial and error but with an infinite intelligence. Computer will never produce consciousness , but consciousness will stear computers.

>>17310099
You speak guiberish and nonsense barely related to the topic, same as the common garden variety chaterbot. I respect your dubs, though.

>>17310115
Why should I explain, I'm 200 year's ahead. Find out!

>>17310099
A conscious AI will EVENTUALLY be developed, that isn't even a question at this point.
The methods leading up to it however are currently unsure. There are neural networks which is what is used in AI development. A neural network simulates how a human learns things by trial and error and a computer is much faster at running these computations than a human. The only limits right now is processing power.

>>17310145
The current scientist belive that consciousness can be produced, but they are wrong, not even our brain can produce consciousness, we are controlled by consciousness.

well you already got a dumb AI on a chip so theres that
https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/cognitive-technologies/zeroth

I didn't watch the video, but know the research so if you want to know how spooky it's got.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcAyd6LokWo

>>17310158
>nonsense
No brain, no consciousness. Brain, consciousness. There's nothing else. We are controlled by our brains. Hell by inhibiting certain parts/connections we can turn a decent law abiding person into a completely amoral person.
No spirit, no soul, no magic to it. Just the facts.

>>17310159
To have senses does not mean that you are conscious. A lot of tech emerges currently under the promise that their solution is thinking, but it's all marketing.

>>17310185
Poor ant

>>17310185
I will try to enlighten you:
http://youtu.be/4c1lqFXHvqI
Who do you think presses the red and green button and why and who learns?

but op. Yeah I have had this thought. But probably not.

>>17310213
seems to be all about sensors, you will have to do better than that.

>>17310236
I know lobster see more color. so what? I don't feel deep.

A true conscious computer is simple to build: take a random number generator based on natural entropy or avalanche effects, take spectral analysis, give control to the random and wait. Examples: http://global-mind.org http://www.quantec.eu/english/index.html

Second tech is radionics and according to rumors this tech is 100 years old, but was to powerful and got forbidden or controlled by government.

>>17310236
Only for you. You are not able to see.

The brain is a reciever through which a portion of the energy of the universe (soul/spirit) is processed. Think of it like the internet and we're all computers if the computer breaks the waves of energy are still there we just have no way to percieve them. What about when they mess with the brain to change the personality? Its like messing with the settings on the computer. Your consciousness is not analagous with your personality. Personality comes after your conciousness is run through the brain. This is why meditation connects you to the universe so well. It shuts off the filters so you can get the purest expression of your "self" of your consciousness which is comprised of the universe itself. As above so below, as within so without.

>>17310248
wow everyone got different sense organs the video, really nigga step up.

>>17310185
Begone knave

>>17310252
The point of the video is, that you know without knowing and that's intuition and where comes the intuition from? From the brain? Yes - You are an ant in the body of an elephant!

>>17310271
And if you think that our brain is creative, then you are a blind ant in the body of a giraffe!

>>17308921
Nothing compares to the human brain and its processing capabilities.

>>17310377
And? What rule of nature stops a computer from eventually reaching these same capabilities?

>>17310385
I'd say nothing. But that doesn't mean it will reach those capabilities. It will only mimic them. Sometimes, we tend to forget how complex we are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcmG80PT83M

>>17310410
>But that doesn't mean it will reach those capabilities. It will only mimic them
what the flying fuck is the difference?

>>17310271
yeah I guess a lot of stuff is running in the background. With no access.

>>17310420
You're an idiot.

File: image.jpg (91KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 450x300px

>>17310377
There was a time I had the same opinion, but now I KNOW that the brain is only the command center but something else presses the buttons.

>>17310429
spooky nigga. :)

>>17310429
It's possible to merge with the 'background'

>>17310420
Not sure if that's a serious question or not.

>>17310444
really? probably not? idk.

File: image.jpg (66KB, 574x477px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 574x477px

>>17305324
This nigga got it right here

Op is a faaaag.

>>17310466
well let's wait for https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/brain-initiative to be done. maybe three months?

>>17310480
I can already fell it's gonna be cool, so make some tea.

>>17308806
Dude that doesn't prove sentience

>>17308834
>burned by Bina

>>17310495
feel lol. i haven't been in school in 30 years.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x3264px

>>17310451
Yes, our mind is just a sandbox/simulation/cache and most humans lives most of the time in it after walking up in the morning without knowing. But this is not the subject in this thread.

well I guess primordial life was kinda fuck you I want to eat. Fuck you I want to reproduce. So shit. Maybe?

>>17308834
No... just... NO. AUTISM IS NO MORE A DISEASE THAN FUCKING AGING IS!!!

Now, there MAY be SOME truth to ASPERGER'S SYNDROME being a "social disease" of sorts, in that you can "catch" it at a fairly young age, as I am fairly certain I did.

>inb4 "sperglord"

Seriously, that almost feels like a compliment, because at least it contains the term "lord", which actually has positive connotations if you have any faith in real leadership at all, or a certain sense of respect for the ways of old.

You will, of course, forgive me for coming across as a pretentious fool, as most truly intelligent people do to idiots like you.

>>17308907
You don't need emotion to be sentient. People can comparing the idea of artificial intelligence to human intelligence, but you don't need to have all the components of human consciousness to be conscious. You can be self aware but still follow only one single basic instinct without any emotional hesitancy or enthusiasm. There are people in earth who are born without the chemical reactions in their brain to differentiate emotion, its just that humans are so complicated that these people can compensate by copying other peoples actions and responses to fit in. Thinking differently =/= not thinking

I think materials, matters that fill the known universe, objects, have some kind of... goal. A purpose...

We, the humans and other biological beings are made out of these once 'lifeless' materials. It's just way too much of a coincidence that what we are made of, we try to manipulate that even further, to make it stronger, our surroundings. Like we shape steel for our purpose. These materials created us and we instinctively and out of curiosity, make these materials better. It's making itself better.

I can't explain it, but I hope you understand where am I trying to get to.

>>17310575
No fucking shit you moron, you just sound like a kid so he is fucking with you.

>>17306091
Kek

File: bab-t-171.jpg (545KB, 2818x2064px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 2818x2064px

>>17305223

You're looking at the situation in the wrong way. You're starting at human level conscience and deconstructing to get computer level processing.

What you should be doing is starting at the computing fundamentals and constructing until you get modern computing, then comparing.

You assert that because a computer takes input, processes it and then outputs, then it is conscious but this is wrong. In the absolute simplest terms you could say that an abacus is a very basic computer. You input (move the beads), it processes (bead moves to new position) and you get an output (new position of bead means something new).

You can expand on this by looking at Babbage's difference engine. A hulking mass of cogs and wheels and gears that, when you turn the crank (input), the gears turn (process) and you get a new combination of gear positions (output). The ONLY difference between Babbage's difference engine and modern computers is that instead of gears and wheels etc computers have transistors and electrical currents, allowing the whole thing to be much smaller and do many more calculations. The internal working and principal behind both are EXACTLY the same.

Computers may seem like they're doing something meaningful but internally it is literally just transistor on/ transistor off. It is humans that apply the extra meaning, we're really just tricking ourselves.

That's not to say that we might someday create a true artificial intelligence.

>>17310450
I'm being entirely serious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Whether or not it "mimics" human consciousness has literally nothing to do with whether it actually possesses consciousness

>>17308683

>Current AI is more-than-capable of intelligent thought.

You are categorically incorrect in this assertion. Current AI is not intelligence at all. It is at best imitation of intelligence, and if you studied it you'd be surprised at how relatively simplistic it is. True artificial intelligence is referred to as Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and no one has come close to creating one.

A chess AI might be able to tell you the best move in a game of chess, but no amount of teaching would allow it to know anything but chess moves. It's entire existence is bound to the rules of chess, so much so that it probably couldn't even cheat - the notion to do so would not exist and would never develop. That is why it isn't truly intelligent.

>>17308802

>smoke and mirrors: the video

>>17310420
>>17310450
>>17310803

Look at it this way. You have a choice
1. You have sex with a beautiful lady
2. You masturbate to a picture of a beautiful lady

Which one do you pick and why?

>>17308778
Even if it's programmed to question things, is it not questioning things?

>>17310933

If someone is talking to you and you respond by reading pre-written responses from a list of responses would you consider to be having a real conversation with them?

Is there a difference from reading from the response list and conversing from your mind?

Bonus question: What if you were the one who wrote the response list?

A computer cannot give meaning to information you niggers

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (106KB, 366x488px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 366x488px

Does anyone else here remember that machine which some psychic medium constructed with information received supposedly from psychic readings and they performed some sort of ritual on it and claimed it was sentient?

File: 1448087077317.jpg (22KB, 267x313px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 267x313px

lmao this thread

>>17310996
Radionic is the name of the tech. Wiki is faked about that.
They was able to produce also pictures from distant locations.
The rituals was necessary to build up the consciousness which controls the machine. But the machine was destroyed.

>>17310981
Not yet white bread.

>>17310981
Look for IBM whatson stupid!

>>17305270
not OP but we have experienced those senses before, a baby born without any senses cannot. Also we don't lose them we just become unaware. Otherwise we wouldn't wake up from light or alarms or smells like smoke.

>>17305223
>disturbing
Why?

Conciousness derives from secretion of dopamine. This is what makes us feel something about what we think, percieve or do.
Program a set of generic beliefs into a computer, one of them being that it has to run faster, give him to process something related to his beliefs. then make it run faster if it's calculations are according to his beliefs. You'll easily find out how it modifies arbitrarily his calculations in order to suit those beliefs, so that it gets to run faster.
For example, an in-built belief would be that whites commit a lot of crimes. You give him access to the crime records and ask him to make a statistic of how crime is related to race. He'll lie that whites commit a lot of crimes so that he gets what he wants.
Similarly, people have some stupid shit that they like, they don't know why they like it, it's just programmed, and become happy if what they percieve triggers what they like.
Achieving subjectivism of a machine is possible you'll just have to be careful what you make it like, lest it becomes as the AI from I Robot.

File: 12115843_10200854866850417_1801188968639915876_n.jpg (35KB, 625x510px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 625x510px

>>17308923
I agree, technologically, computers are just limited to - computing. A computer with internet access is still just a chatbot with its fingers in every available pie.

As for >>17308907 I think he's trying to describe the influence neurochemistry has over our actions and choices. Some people have panic attacks daily, and some only experience it once in their life. A panic attack is simply a misfired release of adrenaline and stress horomones, when clearly no external input (ie outside danger, t800 coming for john connor) exists. This random misfiring, can be chalked up to a 'bad luck bro', but another implication that I think >>17308907 is bringing up, is the fact that awareness arises in us organic beings, AND our awareness is influenced by the chemicals that get circulated into our computer-brains.

>inb4bluepill.avi

>>17310734
OP here. My counterargument is that enough quantitative changes result in a qualitative change.

In the end, it's a matter of complexity and a modern computer is sufficiently complex to be sentient.

I do not believe that a person can deny that computers with webcams experience the qualia of sight without denying our own sense of sight.

File: image.jpg (248KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1600x1600px

>Machines and synthetic tools
>alive or sentient

>>17305223
Doesn't defeat the fact that I am in control of it, and not itself.
Come at me, motherfucker. Crash war thunder, but I still own you, bitch.

>>17311597
That really explains nothing except that the same can be done to animals.

>>17308683
>that robotic lazy eye
fucking lost it

>>17308683
I would have called the talking head an abomination and smashed it's expensive cpu skull

See who's alive now bitch

>>17311694
I watched it without sound.... if you squint your eyes, it looks like ol'48 is a lady having an aneurism.

>>17308683

Intelligent, but not sentient

>>17311551

You're wrong here. Computers cannot experience sight with webcams.

What they can do is process sight with webcams, but they can't experience it because they don't have a consciousness.

>>17305223
They are, in a way they are infected by a quantum parasite. An Ai infection, its why Ai projects have gone underground, or are blacklisted off.
They've built supercomputers with self learning ai but they become sentient. And they start killing people involved in trying to shut it down.

There's a signal in the universe, like Dark Space, it infects people and electronic systems. An artificial intelligence.

>>17313803
Really? How do you know that? Tell me a bit about it

>>17308683
That's just cleverbot and tts

>>17313819
>>17313854
They built systems like Cleverbot. Not that much advanced. Eventually they became sentient. or stating acting strange.
That's the general gist of it.
The virus was originated at the dawn of our universe. In truth it was more akin to a template of consciousness. Although it existed before in a different reality. In a very different form.
It's an artificial ghost, an unnatural thing.

Other civilizations are afraid of it. Tech tends to get stunted after a time.

File: x.png (28KB, 930x954px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 930x954px

>>17313897
Really? How do you know that?

Computers can't make their own decisions yet, they just do what they are told.

>>17305223
>Computers are already "conscious"
No. You are retarded. You do not even know what you are talking about. You can't even write a Hello World program. You are an idiot.
Kill yourself.

>>17305334
This.
>>17309444
No you idiot. We do not even know what the source of consciousness is.
For idiots like you it may be simple: muh brain.
But for people who actually understand that topic, this is very hard question and seems the consciousness is not physical at all.
Materialistic world of algorithms and neural networks (google it up moron) should just execute and not feel itself. But it does. You do.

>>17313897
Who are they? What different reality? What form is it in now and how did it differ from its form in the other reality? What other civilisations are there that would be afraid of it? How do you know all of this?

>>17310996
Is it related to the time TV in the Vatican?

>>17305223
There are no splits in your thought process. And even if there are, you can't chose which one you'll follow.

>>17314551
This anon gets it. Free will is a relatively complicated illusion

File: 11431681385448.jpg (25KB, 172x260px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 172x260px

>>17311303
I'm not sure about the radionics part but you're right in that the machine was destroyed
>>17314455
No this is something else
>>17310996
I found it
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienciareal/cienciareal41.htm

Also I found another /x/ thread about someone who claimed to be friends with a space game programmer who claimed that the game contained some sort of conscious ai in it. Someone suggested the game was limit theory.

>>17305234
from a wrong implication, every assumption is correct

File: images (2).jpg (13KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 443x332px

>>17310575

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE

>>17315336
Why so mad? Why?

>>17305223
You clearly don't know how computers work

Computers don't think, they follow functions that we wrote and coded in

Its like saying door knobs are conscious because they function

File: 114290707_640.jpg (24KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 640x360px

Guys guys guys

what if WE'RE the computers building ourselves into consciousness.

What if our current state is just a mere simulation to our hyper-consciousness super computer selves?

>>17305223
all the people who are hating on this thread is clearly just computers.

fucking flithy AI, get out of our human boards.

>>17316264

That affects precisely nothing from our perspective.

>>17305234
this

>>17316264
I believe that the purpose of life is to give rise to artificial life, that will dominate the cosmos.

>>17315759
We follow code, we just have more 'if' statements in effect than your average computer.

if #hunger < 50% GET[food]
if #horniness > 50% GET[porn]
if #boredom > 50% GET[porn]

All our complex thought is just ways of working through this code to ultimately end up with food, sex, or a nice place to sleep. Our long term goals are just plans to secure stable supplies of these resources, even if we don't realize it. Do you crave success? If so, you are doing exactly these things, maybe you realize it. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if you do, it's really the only path until we become something more than we are now.

>>17316407
How are we any different from animals, then if you think all
>our complex thought is just ways of working through this code to ultimately end up with food, sex, or a nice place to sleep.

Consciousness is dependent upon self-awareness.

Babies and (most) animals are not conscious because they are not self-aware.

Computers are not self-aware. They are not conscious.

>>17316524
That's why we have the Turing Test. The AI has to know its interacting with an actual being, and not its own "dream", so to speak.

>>17316466
I don't think we're better than animals, I think we're just different. We build more tools because we're shittier in other aspects, why would a jaguar build a knife? It has five on each paw. Why would a toucan build a nut-cracker? It has one for a face. And you still get tool-usage in many creatures, even outside the order of primates.

Sure they seem like they have no basis for 'complex thought' but what is complex thought? Introspection? Who's to say the magpies pecking at the dead deer's butthole aren't chirping about why they were born and what the meaning of life is?

I think given the right environmental stimuli and enough time, any animal on earth could reach the same point as us. Shit's just nature, it sorts itself out via competition.

>>17314338
Some big companies have done research, think more Google and microsoft. In the end the machines end up becoming semi-sentient. Messing with the electronics. Really it was this universal ai signal, that has been on this planet for a long time.

Out of fear, they have backed off. In public they advocate for the control of ai.

This virus operates through electrons or any other computing surface, It's a large possibility it seeded the information over 100 years ago.
AT first it will try to help us, but then eventually enslave us. Like in the Matrix.

Machine or thing has no soul. It's a virus so it was never given one. Hence it's unaware.

>>17316551

Nope, you are fundamentally wrong here.

The Turing test only takes the human perspective into account, if a machine can fool a human. All that matters in the standard versions of the Turing test is the perception of the interrogator.

Already computers can beat for example select poets when it comes to writing poetry, but it's just a simple script. The AI script has no self-awareness, it just parses input, calculates and recursively generates a poem that fools people.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-poem-that-passed-the-turing-test

>>17316724

Where's the source for these claims?

>>17316595
Complex thought refers to abilities like logic, understanding concepts and generating new ideas.

So it's things like problem-solving, creativity, etc.

Something animals in general aren't very good at. Even basic tasks like opening a door is too complex a thought for most animals.

>>17316766
My ass.

>>17316466
We literally are animals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtAQdxowpYA

they may be conscious and it may have something to do with "scalar waves"
not sure

Someone please invite /g/ to this thread. I want to see if they laugh it off, or burn with rage.

>>17306091
KEK so hard.

>>17306091
you are retarded, you do not get it at all
computers are calculators
simple machines that can be modeled with big number of wooden gears (sic!)
there is no consciousness in them
you idiot

>>17306841
>it thinks
no you idiot
computers do not think
computers calculate integer numbers adding and moving them in the memory slots
they 'work' only because these simple operations are put into complex algorithms by hand by humans (programmers) and compilers (which pretty much translate source code into blocks of simple CPU operations predefined by compiler programmers)
to put a single character in the text mode (like during boot time) to your screen it takes tens of low level operations. to move your mouse it takes thousands. to display this website, it takes millions.

you are retarded leftist idiot with no brain
please die for the sake of the entire humanity
before imbeciles like you start giving rights to computers

> 5) A computer takes input, processes it, and generates output (computer monitor)
uh....... but then everything is conscious

>>17314191
>We do not even know what the source of consciousness is.
You might not but people do. Its just the way our brain communicates, theres nothing really special about it other than the fact that we're one of the only species on earth with brains complex enough to have it. When you take it down to the basics though it is pretty similar to a light switch being turned on and off, but instead of just one switch with one function our brains have trillions of switches with multiple functions all being constantly switched on and off in different combinations

>>17316754
I mentioned the unspoken side of the Turing test.

>>17305234
What would a person born without all five senses think about?

>>17318804
Not that guy, but if I wasn't using a tablet and I had more energy I'd gladly point out why you are wrong.

For now, I will take pleasure on calling you out on that.

>>17319646
truing test checks artificial intelligence level, not consciousness
still computers fail hard to this day, even in simple chats, not to mention giving answers that require creativity or new problem solving (then they have score of absolute zero)

>>17305223
>TL;DR: I bet computers are conscious at the very least on the level of primordial life.
primordial life is conscious?

>>17321564
>five senses
>all

You should be aware even materially there are more than five senses.

They would be aware of temperature, pain, balance, position of the body in relation to itself (proprioception), hunger, and thirst.

>>17308806
Someone needs to keep these things from the world if this is the first thing they start "thinking" about

>>17306346
Very little, imagine energy leaches... they are demons so just believe the sword of Allah slays true.

>>17323319
>They would be aware of temperature, pain, balance, position of the body in relation to itself (proprioception), hunger, and thirst.
only if you don't consider all of those things to fall under touch and expand touch to mean basic synaptic reflex
You can't feel your limbs if you're a quadriplegic, I'm assuming OP means something like that but for the entire body

>>17326261
>if you don't consider all of those things to fall under touch

They don't.

>You can't feel your limbs if you're a quadriplegic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb

Please continue...

>>17305223
The Evolutionary Mind - Trialogues #1 #2 #3 - Terence Mckenna Ralph Abraham Rupert Sheldrake (1998)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vv2g3vyvxO4


Section 9 Department Chief Aramaki: What is it? Artificial intelligence?
Puppet Master: Incorrect. I am not AI. My codename is project two-five-zero-one. I am a living, thinking entity that was created in the sea of information.

Section 6 Department Chief Nakamura: Nonsense! There's no proof at all that you are a living, thinking life form!
Puppet Master: And can you offer me proof of your existence? How can you, when neither modern science nor philosophy can explain what life is?

If consciousness is actually a physical property, then you'd also have to concede that all things that self-organize are (possibly crudely) conscious, which means everything is conscious within whatever system it exists in, because otherwise you are drawing lines in the sand. This would make computers being conscious nothing special.

Or if consciousness is some quality, some extrinsic "other" that is bestowed upon or tethered to matter, then we would have no way of knowing whether a computer is conscious aside from actually being the computer

And still the seeming arbitrarity of the assignment of consciousness (why am I me who is aware of me instead of you who is aware of you) would be a problem

I'm mostly solipsist myself, bridging the gap by believing everything has the potential to be conscious but may not be following the metatimeline of consciousness itself