Why a computer can never be conscious

I wonder if quantum computing is the answer, brains are not 1's and 0's
 
DreamKing said:
but it is still an unconscious computer.

I won't believe a conscious computer also.

make sense?
Click to expand...
It's a strawman. A human programs the computer so it does not make sense that you believe the computer.
 
In an infinite universe everything and anything that is possible will happen - and that includes computer
consciousness
 
Tovad said:
In an infinite universe everything and anything that is possible will happen - and that includes computer
consciousness
Click to expand...
Assuming that the Universe is infinite. It also doesn't mean there'll ever be conscious computers anywhere within a trillion light years of this little dot of infinity.
 
It can happen and it certainly will happen. Given enough time.

Replicate man into machine, piece by piece, atom by atom. Then the machine takes over and boom, man is left behind in the dust.

All praise our Robot Overlords!
 
Tovad said:
In an infinite universe everything and anything that is possible will happen - and that includes computer
consciousness
Click to expand...
Not remotely possible that the universe is infinite. It is incurably finite in all directions in space-time, inward, outward, forward, back. It starts and it ends. Finitude is its fabric.

Infinity is a seriously underestimated metric.
 
Last edited:
That article is exactly the sort of nonsense people in 1900 would say about life in 2000. We have absolutely no idea whether general AI is possible.

Over and above that, the two points in the article are stupid.

1) "That difference means the brain’s information handling must also be different from how computers work." Irrelevant

"Those transformations cannot be replicated fully in a computer with a fixed architecture." Bulls**t

2) "A conscious person is aware of what they’re thinking, and has the ability to stop thinking about one thing and start thinking about another – no matter where they were in the initial train of thought. But that’s impossible for a computer to do." Bulls**t

"...there can be no way to analyze a program and be entirely absolutely certain that it can stop." Irrelevant. You can't analyse a superintelligent AI and would have little to no idea of how it works.
 
Bryn said:
That article is exactly the sort of nonsense people in 1900 would say about life in 2000. We have absolutely no idea whether general AI is possible.

Over and above that, the two points in the article are stupid.

1) "That difference means the brain’s information handling must also be different from how computers work." Irrelevant

"Those transformations cannot be replicated fully in a computer with a fixed architecture." Bulls**t

2) "A conscious person is aware of what they’re thinking, and has the ability to stop thinking about one thing and start thinking about another – no matter where they were in the initial train of thought. But that’s impossible for a computer to do." Bulls**t

"...there can be no way to analyze a program and be entirely absolutely certain that it can stop." Irrelevant. You can't analyse a superintelligent AI and would have little to no idea of how it works.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When I looked through the article point by point, pretty much every item was quietly simply incorrect.
 
Bryn said:
That article is exactly the sort of nonsense people in 1900 would say about life in 2000. We have absolutely no idea whether general AI is possible.

Over and above that, the two points in the article are stupid.

1) "That difference means the brain’s information handling must also be different from how computers work." Irrelevant

"Those transformations cannot be replicated fully in a computer with a fixed architecture." Bulls**t

2) "A conscious person is aware of what they’re thinking, and has the ability to stop thinking about one thing and start thinking about another – no matter where they were in the initial train of thought. But that’s impossible for a computer to do." Bulls**t

"...there can be no way to analyze a program and be entirely absolutely certain that it can stop." Irrelevant. You can't analyse a superintelligent AI and would have little to no idea of how it works.
Click to expand...
Ah, ok. You're pretty much defining AI as God.
 
Arthur said:
Ah, ok. You're pretty much defining AI as God.
Click to expand...

Do you think of yourself as a god in comparison to ants? It's not even a meaningful comparison. A superintelligence will more than likely either not care about us because we aren't getting in the way of its goals, or it will exterminate us if we are.

The trick is to become superintelligent with augmentations. Homo Deus for the win.
 
Arthur said:
Not remotely possible that the universe is infinite. It is incurably finite in all directions in space-time, inward, outward, forward, back. It starts and it ends. Finitude is its fabric.

Infinity is a seriously underestimated metric.
Click to expand...

www.space.com

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

Is it possible that our universe is but one of many, with laws that mean nothing in the "pocket universes" that co-exist all around, and through, us? Robert Lawrence Kuhn explores the multiverse with the help of the world's leading experts on these theori
www.space.com www.space.com

To be clear, a truly infinite universe means that anything that is not impossible (no matter how obscure) will happen, must happen and must happen, weirdly, an infinite number of times.
 
Even the terminology we use to discuss artificial consciousness largely came into being only very crudely during the past 40 years. We are infants in terms of our progress.

The vast majority of our time, money and resources have been geared toward dumb technology that can simply crunch numbers for commercial purposes. During the next 500 years we will see hundreds and thousands if not millions+ of advances in technology, materials, intellect, information, theory and so forth before we even begin to engage these ideas on a quantum level.

We will re-think the very foundations of computational power and theory at a molecular level for which today the terminology does not even exist. We will develop and introduce systems of theory and material that we have not yet imagined.

One thousand years after that our daily lives will barely resemble today in the same way they barely resemble 1919, 1819, 1019 or 19.
 
cguy said:
Agreed. When I looked through the article point by point, pretty much every item was quietly simply incorrect.
Click to expand...
You bothered to read it? Based on the title I already placed it under a sensationalism headline where the author didn't know what they were talking about.
 
A conscious computer is based on the premise that our brains are only computational. How do you code the feeling of being alive?
 
Tovad said:
www.space.com

Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean

Is it possible that our universe is but one of many, with laws that mean nothing in the "pocket universes" that co-exist all around, and through, us? Robert Lawrence Kuhn explores the multiverse with the help of the world's leading experts on these theori
www.space.com www.space.com

To be clear, a truly infinite universe means that anything that is not impossible (no matter how obscure) will happen, must happen and must happen, weirdly, an infinite number of times.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

"Infinity" might just be one word among many, philologically considered, but its meaning makes it totally unlike any other. When predicated of any dimensionality (ie space-time) it becomes a universal solvent and tips the speaker into irrationality, and all meaning evaporates.

To say "the universe is infinite" might work grammatically, but it means the same as "flamjebskljzc is crklewqvmpf" or "a five-cornered circle". In other words, it's pure nonsense, a nothing, devoid of any real content.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X