New study proves that sentient machines cannot exist

[Bobbin]

I hardly understand what they are trying to say exactly The way I view the human mind is probably very different.

By basic association we build our minds from simple shapes, colors and experiences to advanced abstractions. That is all, but there is a trick...

The key is to have an algorithm in there that emulates a need. Without a need a machine is not sentient. If it has a need to fulfill then it will action itself to fulfill that need with more and more success each time. That is essentially what survival is and is essentially all there is to human behavior.

It is our needs that we use to associate every experience via all our sensory inputs and derive meaning and action from those experiences.

The "human algorithm" is quite simple despite how complex the total psychology gets. I believe it involves a sort of scale of Happiness to Sadness which is a direct indicator for our survival.

Every sensory input is associated to your genetic hardwiring indicating a need being met or harm being done to you. The outcome is either happy or sad (Positive or negative if you will) or somewhere in between because the sensory input will tell you that you might be hungry or hurt or deriving pleasure or whatever...

Actions or experiences that fall in the "Happiness" state are then pursued more and those resulting that fall more into the "Sadness" bracket are avoided. To me this explains everything in our behavior...every single thing!

In this way hardware is not really important other than having better response times, processing and deciphering capability. The trick in creating sentience is in how the software works. It is all basic association that is built on a foundation of a simple need.

 

[Solarion]

Yes, but we are the mark I model. Now ... try to make a mark II model.

They may just decide to go all Darwin on our a$$es :erm:

 

[Midnight_choir_drunk]

I hardly understand what they are trying to say exactly The way I view the human mind is probably very different.

By basic association we build our minds from simple shapes, colors and experiences to advanced abstractions. That is all, but there is a trick...

The key is to have an algorithm in there that emulates a need. Without a need a machine is not sentient. If it has a need to fulfill then it will action itself to fulfill that need with more and more success each time. That is essentially what survival is and is essentially all there is to human behavior.

It is our needs that we use to associate every experience via all our sensory inputs and derive meaning and action from those experiences.

The "human algorithm" is quite simple despite how complex the total psychology gets. I believe it involves a sort of scale of Happiness to Sadness which is a direct indicator for our survival.

Every sensory input is associated to your genetic hardwiring indicating a need being met or harm being done to you. The outcome is either happy or sad (Positive or negative if you will) or somewhere in between because the sensory input will tell you that you might be hungry or hurt or deriving pleasure or whatever...

Actions or experiences that fall in the "Happiness" state are then pursued more and those resulting that fall more into the "Sadness" bracket are avoided. To me this explains everything!

In this way hardware is not really important other than having better response times, processing and deciphering capability. The trick in creating sentience is in how the software works. It is all basic association that is built on a foundation of a simple need.

It's simpler than that. Summed up every human's emotions and aspirations is somewhere on the spectrum of the desire to F#$% versus the fear of dying.

 

[murraybiscuit]

The universe took billions of years to develop us but to be fair it wasn't exactly working with a plan. So a sentient machine CAN exist..

I think it gets quagmired more in murky definitions. We can't really describe 'consciousness' or 'sentience' in anything more than embodied phenomenology terms cobbled together by various subjective ideas about which parts are more important than others.

 

[Humberto]

It seems that they are saying you need an infinite amount of memory to create a sentient machine, yet humans do it with only a finite amount of memory.

On a related note, the signature of "Baron" states that if P=NP then that fact ought to be easily provable for that very reason. What are your thoughts on this? Do we know that "P=NP" is a polynomial time problem?

 

[Bobbin]

It's simpler than that. Summed up every human's emotions and aspirations is somewhere on the spectrum of the desire to F#$% versus the fear of dying.

haha yeah that about sums it up

 

[murraybiscuit]

At best this assumes it cannot be done with current tech, i.e. limitations on x86 architecture for want of a better example.

Is he not talking about computational logic rather than computational power?

 

[Solarion]

Terminator: "Come with me if you want to live.
Me: "Oh hell yeah!!!"

 

[Rocket Raccoon]

So will the singularity never happen?

 

[Midnight_choir_drunk]

I think it gets quagmired more in murky definitions. We can't really describe 'consciousness' or 'sentience' in anything more than embodied phenomenology terms cobbled together by various subjective ideas about which parts are more important than others.

And it murkies the waters even more when we're surrounded by human beings with the self awareness of a rock. Anyone who feels compelled to watch "keeping up with the Kardashians" can't be seen as a self aware, sentient being who is in a any way liberated from even the most hard lined interpretations of determination.

It's worse than people not making decisions for themselves, it's to the point of people not even being aware of the concept of being able to make a decision for themselves.

 

[Bobbin]

It seems that they are saying you need an infinite amount of memory to create a sentient machine, yet humans do it with only a finite amount of memory.

On a related note, the signature of "Baron" states that if P=NP then that fact ought to be easily provable for that very reason. What are your thoughts on this? Do we know that "P=NP" is a polynomial time problem?

Well that's because we still don't quite know how memory works.

I believe memory is not actually stored anywhere in particular but all over the brain. It uses the same circuitry over again to produce different things because the circuits that hold all the fundamentals of whatever is being recalled (Lines, shapes, colors) are already there to fire up again. Just the pattern of the circuit depicts different pictures.

So it doesn't have to store new memories each time, it can merely recall the correct sequence of circuits that are already there. Highly likely is the prefrontal cortex is where the magic happens to keep the information vivid in our minds. Like the RAM of our brains.

Disclaimer: I work in IT not a neurologist nor a programmer

Oh on your second bit I have no idea what you're talking about

 

[murraybiscuit]

And it murkies the waters even more when we're surrounded by human beings with the self awareness of a rock. Anyone who feels compelled to watch "keeping up with the Kardashians" can't be seen as a self aware, sentient being who is in a any way liberated from even the most hard lined interpretations of determination.

It's worse than people not making decisions for themselves, it's to the point of people not even being aware of the concept of being able to make a decision for themselves.

Lol. I can't argue with that. Idiocracy here we come. Choo-choo.

 

[BLIXEMPIE]

Imagine being able to transfer all my thoughts to a robot. I can then live forever, with what was my brain, in that.

 

[Compton_effect]

Imagine being able to transfer all my thoughts to a robot. I can then live forever, with what was my brain, in that.

That's the thing. If we can't generate sentient machines, we can't upload. We are stuck in these meatpuppets for the rest of our existence. the answer is probably going to be something quantum.

Besides - read 'The Hidden Self'. We are not in control. Our subconscious is. We are sitting at the top, feeling very important, but the nerves that fired to move your hand, fired milliseconds before your consciousness decided to move.

 

[Midnight_choir_drunk]

Imagine being able to transfer all my thoughts to a robot. I can then live forever, with what was my brain, in that.

It's not that simple. Transferring thoughts means nothing. What you'd need to transfer is qualia. And because qualia is a complex , as of yet not understood, subjective mixture of everything from your physical brain, memory, associations, reptile brain instincts, neuro chemistry, endocrinal secretions etc the amount of variable that need to be replicated to emulate "your mind" as you experience it is daunting to say the least. Consider this simple "thought" or "experience".

I see a women I'm in love with naked for the first time.

Involved : Testosterone produced by the testes, Adrenalin produced by the Adrenal gland, involved in turn with the processes and sensations that go with the quickening of the heart, the shortness of the breath in the lungs. The dopamine and serotonin release in the brain, the tingling of the hairs standing on your flesh....and that's before I've
started to talk about the complicated stuff.

So no, it's not as easy as that.

 

[Midnight_choir_drunk]

That's the thing. If we can't generate sentient machines, we can't upload. We are stuck in these meatpuppets for the rest of our existence. the answer is probably going to be something quantum.

Besides - read 'The Hidden Self'. We are not in control. Our subconscious is. We are sitting at the top, feeling very important, but the nerves that fired to move your hand, fired milliseconds before your consciousness decided to move.

That's right. We (our conscious awareness ) is one of the last to know what "decision" we have made.

That would be a mindf#ck to all the hard lined "goodies and baddies" Cartesian dualists you find around. Lucky for them it requires quite a lot of intelligence to ever grasp and if they had that intelligence they'd at least have grasped the concept of causality by now.

 

[johnnybfn]

I was visited by a robot from the future a couple of weeks ago so they are obviously wrong.

 

[Bobbin]

It's not that simple. Transferring thoughts means nothing. What you'd need to transfer is qualia. And because qualia is a complex , as of yet not understood, subjective mixture of everything from your physical brain, memory, associations, reptile brain instincts, neuro chemistry, endocrinal secretions etc the amount of variable that need to be replicated to emulate "your mind" as you experience it is daunting to say the least. Consider this simple "thought" or "experience".

I see a women I'm in love with naked for the first time.

Involved : Testosterone produced by the testes, Adrenalin produced by the Adrenal gland, involved in turn with the processes and sensations that go with the quickening of the heart, the shortness of the breath in the lungs. The dopamine and serotonin release in the brain, the tingling of the hairs standing on your flesh....and that's before I've
started to talk about the complicated stuff.

So no, it's not as easy as that.

Well I'd consider that maybe we don't need all of that. A different body would have different needs. Different reason to live. Love may not even exist once it gets to that.

One documentary I watched suggested that one possibility for all life everywhere in the universe was ultimately not to go out and explore or expand but to create and plug into their very own virtual worlds and fantasies where they live. Thus all intelligent life might mechanize then sort of go completely dormant within itself.

 

[Midnight_choir_drunk]

Well I'd consider that maybe we don't need all of that. A different body would have different needs. Different reason to live. Love may not even exist once it gets to that.

One documentary I watched suggested that one possibility for all life everywhere in the universe was ultimately not to go out and explore or expand but to create and plug into their very own virtual worlds and fantasies where they live. Thus all intelligent life might mechanize then sort of go completely dormant within itself.

To what purpose ? Your very will to transcend the mortal coil only has any context as a human.

 

[Bobbin]

To what purpose ? Your very will to transcend the mortal coil only has any context as a human.

I don't think the will is necessarily human alone but stems from evolution and the self reinforcing need for survival. All life, given the ability/intelligence to conceptualize the idea of immortality, would probably try to pursue it one way or another. Life's purpose is life itself.