Enlightened Man Has Question

[unwise]

I like to stop in every now and then and ask something of the global genius people. I ask this for their own benefit as I no longer have any questions myself. Well, sure, I would like to know when dinner will be ready or how much a day George Bush drinks or who is sleeping with that male prostitute who stays at the White House etc. But these are trivial, unimportant questions. I no longer have existential, philosophical or religious questions. That is a side effect of enlightenment.

As some of you know, I do not believe in giving up anything - especially 'attachments.' My enlightenment has taught me to appreciate the body and circumstances I have temporarily been given. I try to beg you to stop making fun of Nature. You won't get anywhere this way - renouncing your boners and staring into the clouds - blaming girls for everything and calling all non-hermits cowards and women....

So, anyhoo, tomorrow I am off for a week of contemplating beauty at Waikiki Beach in Honolulu. But before I go, let me ask you this:

Why will it be impossible for a computer to have self awareness? Imagine the most sophisticated 'quantum' computer a million years from now. You and I know (or should) that this computer will NOT have self awareness. Why not?

Talk among yourselves.

Wednesday or Thursday I'll be watching surfers at the pipeline on Northshore. There will be a cafe nearby. I'll take my laptop over and see what you all have to say. See you then.

[BMcGilly07]

Myself, I am an occasional submitter. I spend more time here lurking than writing. You come in here, belittling everyone, sticking your nose up in there, assuming your superiorly "enlightened," claiming to beyond spiritual questions.

You are like the man in the following passage from Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra:

The new, would the noble man create, and a new virtue. The old, wanteth the good man, and that the old should be conserved.

But it is not the danger of the noble man to turn a good man, but lest he should become a blusterer, a scoffer, or a destroyer.

Ah! I have known noble ones who lost their highest hope. And then they disparaged all high hopes.

Then lived they shamelessly in temporary pleasures, and beyond the day had hardly an aim.

"Spirit is also voluptuousness,"--said they. Then broke the wings of their spirit; and now it creepeth about, and defileth where it gnaweth.

Once they thought of becoming heroes; but sensualists are they now. A trouble and a terror is the hero to them.

But by my love and hope I conjure thee: cast not away the hero in thy soul! Maintain holy thy highest hope!--

Thus spake Zarathustra.

[unwise]

Always remember that Freddy boy went insane as you will as well if you follow his advice. Also, this is a put down of his colleagues Schopenhauer and Wagner.

[BMcGilly07]

He also had syphillis. The shoe fits your foot equally well.

[Jamesh]

Why will it be impossible for a computer to have self awareness? Imagine the most sophisticated 'quantum' computer a million years from now. You and I know (or should) that this computer will NOT have self awareness. Why not?

[Just crapping on in the spirit of the original post.]


I guess quantum is the key word. I looked at Wiki for 5 minutes and couldn't make heads or tails of what Quantum computing is. It seems to be no different than a normal computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing and the link re qubits.

"A bit is the base of computer information. Regardless of its physical representation, it is always read as either a 0 or a 1. An analogy to this is a light switch - the down position can represent 0 (normally equated to off) and the up position can represent 1 (normally equated to on).

A qubit has some similarities to a classical bit, but is overall very different. Like a bit, a qubit can have only two possible values - normally a 0 or a 1. The difference is that whereas a bit must be either 0 or 1, a qubit can be 0, 1, or a superposition of both."

[i have no idea what I'm talking about here]

Sounds like the author of this wiki article has no idea either. The blue sentence conflicts with the red sentence.

When he refers to a superposition of both this can only mean an equalisation of 0 and 1, or in my terms the contracting and expansionary forces forming a balance. I guess the outcome of a balanced unit of 0 and 1 over time will be either a 0 or 1, because a 100% absolutely balanced unit of 0/1 is simply impossible, and whichever of the 0 or 1 is just marginally stronger will over time become dominant. In the DNA world there are no 0's and 1's like computer bits, but zillions of 0/1 units of which one side is marginally stronger than the other.

This being the case then, yes quantum computers can be created that have self-awareness. It just requires the selection of the right quantum material.

I have no doubt a DNA computer can be made to have self-awareness, our awareness after all is just a matter of causal fluctuations and timing switches. Our consciousness has to be of a quantum nature, though I'm sure unwise will say otherwise. The physical elements that cause our consciousness does not have to be so though.

DNA is no different to any other material, its made of atoms and so on, so a non-DNA computer shouldn't be a problem once technology developes enough.

"Because of quantum mechanics, any measurement of a quantum system inevitably alters the system. Much like Schrödinger's cat, a qubit can exist in more than one state, but measuring that qubit causes that superposition to collapse into one state or the other, according to the probabilities mentioned above."

Quantum computers would need to be grown somewhat like crystals, to avoid the complications of interferences through measurement.


Ohh fuck this, its too complex for my little head.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I figure that if you take a sufficiently complicated neural net, give it some senses (input), a method of speaking (output), something to talk to, and enough time; you'll have yourself a proper self aware computer.

[unwise]

Never mind 'quantum.' A computer will never be self aware. It doesn't matter how fantastically complex it is. Why is this? In other words, if the most sophisticated computer a million years from now will not be self aware, then how does the brain make one self aware? Does it?

[DHodges]

A computer will never be self aware. It doesn't matter how fantastically complex it is.

I disagree. A brain is nothing but an extremely complex computer. Remember that a brain is possibly the most complex thing known to exist. Existing computers are relatively simple devices.

You can imagine replacing the function of a single neuron with a microcomputer that imitates its function. The brain is not dependant on any one neuron for its function - they die off all the time.

Keep replacing that billions of times, until you run out of neurons, and you will have moved a self-aware state from a biological medium to a different medium (depending on what your microcomputers are made of).

We can not do this today, but I don't see any theoretical reason to think it can not be done.

I further claim that this is the equivalent of the combination of Turing's thesis and the claim that the brain is (at most) equivalent in power to a turing machine, which I must admit is not a settled question by a long shot.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Hopefully, we will be able to create artificial intelligence in the future that lacks Unwise’s blatant and disgraceful sense of superiority, self-importance, and over-confidence in future events.

Because if we cannot then I’m afraid our civilization could be in trouble indeed...

Hey Unwise, I think you should change your topic heading from "Enlighened man has a question", to "The Arrogant Fool who wants to boast to others"

It is a much more fitting title...hahahahahhaahahah.

Because it seems your sole motivation for dropping by the forum is to repeatedly confirm your own sense superiority over everyone to yourself. It is really quite weak Unwise, Read over your work slowly and see for yourself.

oh, and by the way, here's a little surprise for you from Ryan's pleasure basket -
Click Here

[unwise]

Ryan, I did not click there. But really, if you fellows were not so self-satisfied and complacent in your academic fog bank, I would not feel tempted to antagonize you with the rays of the Waikiki sun.

If you really think a computer will ever become self aware, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about consciousness that will prevent you from seeing the truth.

And now I have to catch my plane. See you on the beach.

[DHodges]

If you really think a computer will ever become self aware, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about consciousness that will prevent you from seeing the truth.

Well, I guess that settles that!

[Ryan Rudolph]

Unwise wrote:

Ryan, I did not click there.

Don’t pretend that you didn’t click that link Unwise. You know, I know, and everybody in this forum knows that you clicked that link.

Unwise wrote:

And now I have to catch my plane. See you on the beach.

Isn’t that convenient that you can’t stay to back up your claims? It’s always something with you isn’t Unwise? Just when things get interesting, you’re going on vacation, or you’re going on a motorcycle rally, or a pornography convention, or a how to become a powerful guru in 24 hours seminar.

Unwise wrote:

If you really think a computer will ever become self aware, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about consciousness that will prevent you from seeing the truth.

Yes, I agree with Dhodges. There is no argument here, only a vague and overly cryptic sentence that allows us to assume that Unwise is an all-knowing omnipotent being that is beyond all of us so he doesn’t have to use mere language to communicate his ideas.

Bow down to the Almighty Unwise! I declare Unwise as the forum’s new golden calf, we could even give him a new name to honor his new godliness, how about Lambert?

Moving on to the actual topic at hand, here are some fundamental questions that need to be raised to determine whether A.I could ever exhibit the degree of self-awareness as acheived by some humans.

First of all, from what we know thus far self-awareness can only come about through an organism that suffers and that organism must be capable of being able to learn from that suffering. So do machines need to be programmed to suffer? And is that even possible?

A biological organism, with all its complicated psychology has the potential for higher states of self-awareness, but can machines ever have this potential?

Can electronic machinery ever approach a level of complexity as to be an adequate substitute for biological tissue as far as the material conditions for consciousness is concerned?

Can a machine grow through a similar trajectory as humanity? Can you start an evolutionary cycle similar to a human being and somehow speed up the process?

Based on these unanswered issues, I suspect that there are many hurtles to create self-aware machines, but I’m not ruling out the possibility altogether.

Unwise’s argument, and arguments like it assume that the material conditions that are found in the human organism cannot be duplicated, that humans are somehow special in some unknown regard, and this maybe the truth. Consciousness could be ultimately unknowable as far as understanding it and replicating it, but I don’t know, I’m not absolutely certain. I don’t know enough about the potential of technology, and the potential of human beings as creators of consciousness. Are humans destined to create higher consciousness in machines? Or will machines always be our inferior sidekicks?

[David Quinn]

Also, Unwise is being inconsistent in his reasonings about brains and computers. Let us not forget that he is a dualist who believes that consciousness is something separate from the rest of the Universe. He doesn't believe that consciousness emerges from causal circumstances, in the same manner as everything else. No, to him, consciousness is different. It is primary and timeless, outside the realm of causality.

Yet for some unknown reason he allows one form of machinary (the brain) to house consciousness, but not another form of machinary (computers). This is irrational.

If a computer cannot house consciousness because it is a mere machine, then neither can the brain. Alternatively, if the brain can house consciousness despite the fact it is a mere machine, then so too can a computer. Both brains and computers are tied together in the same boat as far as this issue is concerned.

-

[Matt Gregory]

Unwise wrote:

Ryan, I did not click there.

Don’t pretend that you didn’t click that link Unwise. You know, I know, and everybody in this forum knows that you clicked that link.

Yeah, he obviously clicked it. He's trying to cover it up.

Can a machine grow through a similar trajectory as humanity? Can you start an evolutionary cycle similar to a human being and somehow speed up the process?

Sure, because we can bootstrap machines by copying the state over to another machine, so even if physical training is required it will only have to be done once. I think the biggest mystery revolves around how much in consciousness was not learned and was inherited through genetics. That stuff will have to be explicitly designed into it. Like the sense of self, for example.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt Gregory wrote:

Yeah, he obviously clicked it. He's trying to cover it up.

Same old story eh Matt? Everyone can see Unwise’s motivations, but Unwise himself.

Moreover, he should finally come clean to everyone in the forum and admit that he clicked that link, I think it would represent a fundamental change of direction in his spiritual journey.

It would represent his first step towards absolute honesty - The first step is the last step - like a dying leaf that stops resisting gravity and falls from the tree to wither and decay on the cold ground below.

David Quinn wrote:

Let us not forget that he is a dualist who believes that consciousness is something separate from the rest of the Universe. He doesn't believe that consciousness emerges from causal circumstances, in the same manner as everything else. No, to him, consciousness is different. It is primary and timeless, outside the realm of causality.

He seems to be a Dualist in terms of how he perceives himself in respect to this entire intellectual community as well.

For example: In Unwise's mind, there is him which represents God or the ultimate and then there is us, who are all deluded due to our foggy cloud of logic, but he is going to teach us by periodically stopping by and asserting his superiority over us, and thereby reaffirming his role as master guru or whatever he believes he is, but I wonder how many more stops Unwise will make before he grows weary of his own self-created game?

[Matt Gregory]

Well Ryan, I didn't want to say anything, because I know you're relatively new around here, but I'm going to level with you. You gotta quit giving Unwise those links to click on, otherwise he'll just keep coming back. He just can't resist the temptation and I think it's actually kind of cruel of you to keep messing with him like that. So, please, for the sake of compassion, stop.

[Iolaus]

Hello Unwise you ministering angel you,

Tend to agree a computer can't be self aware but can't be sure when I don't know what self is, don't know what consciousness is, and don't know whence reality. What is primary?

Looks like self-aware or consciousness is of a different order in animate things, but don't rule out consciousness in everything. Not the same, though. So life. Life is the difference. Life is the carrier. Computer ain't alive.

And don't be so impatient Ryan. He'll come back to mock us in just a couple of days.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt Gregory wrote:

Well Ryan, I didn't want to say anything, because I know you're relatively new around here, but I'm going to level with you. You gotta quit giving Unwise those links to click on, otherwise he'll just keep coming back. He just can't resist the temptation and I think it's actually kind of cruel of you to keep messing with him like that. So, please, for the sake of compassion, stop.

Why are you so concerned with Unwise’s feelings Matt? Are you really concerned with your own feelings?

If Unwise is enlightened, he wont suffer at all from my insults. If he isn’t enlightened, then he may suffer as a result of insults because they hurt the image he has of himself, which is an indication that he has work to do. This type of suffering can lead to contemplation and growth.

If I determine that Unwise is maschistic then I will discontinue, but I haven’t come that conclusion yet.

Moreover, he is unusually persistent in trying to propagate his inferior values throughout the forum such as hedonism and blind acceptance of the mind’s desire to pursue greater experiences, and to point out his errors in a satirical manner is one approach.

Matt, you need to ask yourself this question - why are you so uncomfortable to see another suffer? Is this really compassion on your part? What is compassion if it isnt brutal honesty? Doesn’t brutal honesty cause suffering to ignorant people? So ironically a compassionate individual causes suffering to most people when he speaks the truth to them.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

For unwise's last discussion on the nature of consciousness, see the first 3 or so pages of this thread: Some questions

As near as I remember, according to unwise's theory a computer would not be able to have consciousness since consciousness itself is not really present in the same way that a thing would be. Building a consciousness is like baking a donut hole -- and still having the hole after the donut that was used to make it was eaten.

I think David has phrased unwise's position well -- but I'm sure unwise will want to change the wording.

[unwise]

I don't know why I should click on a link. YOu think I'm a monkey? I click on what I want.

This is cool. I'm sitting in a loud bar with my laptop on the edge of Waikiki. No windows here - just palm trees and the ocean. A bunch of candles and poles with flames coming out of them. The band is singing 'Mississippi Mud' by the Doobie Bros. Weird.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I don't know why I should click on a link. YOu think I'm a monkey? I click on what I want.

Ryan! Look what you've done! You've created the world's first link-o-phobic! (lol)

[Jamesh]

I think Unwise's problem is his belief that some things, like Cosmic Consciousness, don't need causes, but just must exist.

I reckon that as he was raised as a Mormon that this experience caused his brain to form too many more or less hard wired, long term memory areas that cause him, to this day, to give positive values and meaning in the action of believing in some form of Godly presence in the universe. He has developed a "god centre" in his brain that he has yet to destroy: most of those who are caused to reject their established religion attempt to fill this god void with some other illusionary higher power.

Believing in some higher power gives him pleasure, it meets the expectations of his ego, the content of which is primarily caused by his memories, whereas to not believe same would cause him pain. Like everyone else, his logic is flavoured by such memories, and whatever is considered positive to his ego-memories will be considered to be The Truth.

If someday he accepts that cause and effect is absolute, that no thing can be formed in a non-dualistic manner, such as what a cosmic consciousness would have to be as a fundamental form of existence, then he may be able to eradicate his emotional need to please his past. The same process, but even more difficult to eradicate just via thought, would be involved in relation to sexual desires/memories.

Lol.... Incidentally, I do believe in the idea of cosmic consciousness, but only because I consider consciousness just a complex (read layered) structure of basic physical awareness.

This physical awareness exists. Everything is aware of that which surrounds it. Without such awareness there could be no reaction. The mere fact that everything is interconnected ensures this. WAIT STOP PRESS :), that statement is wrong.

The correct statement should be:

Everything IS interconnected from the non-dualistic, outside, effects based or "the-sum-of-parts-defined-as-one" perspective, and NOT interconnected from the dualistic, internal, causal based perspective.

What this rather profound statement means is that it is the combination of the absolute interconnectedness of things (synchronistic patterns of causal flow), and the absolute non-interconnectability of the fundamental dualistic causal infinities, that causes things to have physical awareness of that which they are not.

Awareness is awareness of the existence of boundaries to causal flows, as caused by opposing causal flows. If one were to remove all external causal influences on an atom, it would greatly enlarge, fall apart or explode - but whatever the case there would be some form of expansion. Normally, it is bounded and kept to a certain form by that which is external to its dominant causal flow.

At the most fundamental level, this equates to the expansionary force having an awareness of the contracting force. Each being infinite they cannot become the other. They are bounded by each other and so awareness arises in its simplest form, awareness has been caused. All things consist of these fundamental forces, so all things have this same awareness, a fundamental awareness of that which they are not.

The brain itself is just a multi-layered, three dimensional web of this same awareness, that has a central control switch, the consciousness, whose task it is to cause causal waves to flow into and out from this central switch. These causal waves snowball or cascade up into instructions for the brain and return to the consciousness by the reverse effect. A causal wave is simply a spatial area where there is an non-zero expansion/contraction ratio. Awareness is always in operation until this central unit dies.

Just as damage to a brain can cause a person to be paralysed, because consciousness cannot direct the normal instructions to certain parts of the brain, sleep is just where the causal flows have been altered by other chemical switches, away from the sensory areas of the brain, so as not to cause awakedness, or externally induced input into the consciousness switch. REM sleep and dreaming is where the senses have primarily been switched off, but the frontal lobes are partially switched on to allow reclassification and sorting of data without sensory noise.

From Wiki: "During a night of sleep, a person usually has about four or five periods of REM sleep, which are quite short at the beginning of the night and longer at the end. It is common to wake for a short time at the end of a REM phase"

This being the case, then REM sleep might actually be the brain testing memories sorted in the background, in a batch like process not that unlike computers - hence the broken nature of REM sleep. Our prior animal forms also evolved sleep to get through the night without excessive boredom.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Unwise wrote:

This is cool. I'm sitting in a loud bar with my laptop on the edge of Waikiki. No windows here - just palm trees and the ocean. A bunch of candles and poles with flames coming out of them. The band is singing 'Mississippi Mud' by the Doobie Bros. Weird.

Say hi to Paris Hilton for me.

Elizabeth wrote:

Ryan! Look what you've done! You've created the world's first link-o-phobic!

The reason I knew that Unwise wasn’t capable of not clicking the link is because he isn’t able to negate anything in life, he says that a wise man can have whatever he wants, vacations, luxury, motorcycle tours across the USA, women, drugs, bad food – causality doesn’t seem to apply to Unwise’s view of the liberation of consciousness.

Yep, Unwise is sure a Strange Animal

[Greg Shantz]

I did a lip-synch to that song in an air band when I was in the thrid grade.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Yep, Unwise is sure a Strange Animal

Yup, but if the QRS had been able to capture all of the strange animals that have wandered through GF, they would have quite a zoo by now.