Moosedrool
Honorary Master
You have to subscribe to the idea that a soul or some kind of supernatural phenomena exists in order to make the argument that it's impossible.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How frequently are you watching FIFA World Cup 2026 matches?
Why a computer can never be conscious
- Thread starter Jamie McKane
- Start date
-
- Tags
- computers
So, do you believe that consciousness is in non-coded DNA? That doesn’t make any sense.
Where else would it be encoded if not in its structure?
SauRoNZA
Honorary Master
Aren’t they? It’s after all just electricity.
Not all that far removed from binary.
It’s just a hell of a lot of it.
Nope, I'm suggesting that if instructions cannot be duplicated then you can't duplicate what cannot be computed.
If it were known where consciousness is encoded then IA projects, where millions have been spent would be successful, not so?
Pretty much every part of that sentence doesn’t make sense.
No, a technological machine is not a massive neural network, so it has to simulate it, which is inherently much less efficient. Recent advances have skyrocketed progress in this area, so unless we hit any performance roadblocks, it should eventually be possible.
Let's chat about it again when experts are able to code an instruction for IA to have feelings about existing, being in love, art, music, solitude etc.Pretty much every part of that sentence doesn’t make sense.
No, a technological machine is not a massive neural network, so it has to simulate it, which is inherently much less efficient. Recent advances have skyrocketed progress in this area, so unless we hit any performance roadblocks, it should eventually be possible.
Last edited:
Once again, it doesn’t have to be coded, it will be emergent.
Why hasn't that happened yet?
Many things haven't happened yet. Therefore they are impossible? Ask a baby to explain consciousness or how it feels to be alive. Humans takes years to develop before they are able to provide a multitude of conflicting answers through experience in the wild. We still have such a low understanding of the human brain. It will never grow? It is fixed at today's low level for eternity?
The same reason we didn’t have 8k televisions in 1976.
Not even an adult can explain consciousness or how it feels to be alive, yet you're asking a baby to do it.
The first person to solve P versus NP problem would unlock the next level of AI, ie a conscious computer.
Consciousness has existed for millions of years, the technology to create 8k televisions wasn't available in 1976.
Of course adults can articulate some form of understanding of consciousness. Whether their answer is a valuable contribution or a worthless opinion is another matter. The point is that humans develop. They are not born with skills, knowledge, and so forth. They cannot even speak until they learn so of course a baby cannot. That is my point. It would be perfectly conceivable in the distant future to create an AI which would have the capacity to learn and formulate rules beyond what is coded. There is a largely accepted understanding of the measures of consciousness I will try locate it.
Again with the 'how it feels to be alive'. You have unilaterally decided that is the requirement of consciousness.
Yet the three levels of consciousness commonly referred to have no such requirement.
OpenSearch Dashboards
edgy.app
There are likely another 1000+ theories and definitions attempting to define consciousness. I do not claim one is superior to the other, but you cannot simply decide 'how it feels to be alive' is the yardstick.
SaiyanZ
Executive Member
According to stuff you've posted it has? Here's an AI communicating according to you.
Finally did another session and it's based on Area 51 and aliens. It was kind of fun. Mind you, if some government declares existence of aliens I think some therapy would definitely be required.
The idea that machines can be conscious is based on the assumption that pain, feeling, emotions etc. are simply functions of the configuration of matter. Science is yet to explain though why these are real rather than us being programmed to simply react to stimulus. The latter would also be more effective. We have a lot of catching up to do. As Rupert Sheldrake says there is no reason to assume that consciousness isn't an aspect of the universe and matter like other forces are. If that's the case it's unlikely it could simply be duplicated in a non-biological machine.
Note that consciousness is not the same as thinking, knowing, reasoning. It is not AI.
Note that consciousness is not the same as thinking, knowing, reasoning. It is not AI.
Again with the 'how it feels to be alive'. You have unilaterally decided that is the requirement of consciousness.
Yet the three levels of consciousness commonly referred to have no such requirement.
OpenSearch Dashboards
There are likely another 1000+ theories and definitions attempting to define consciousness. I do not claim one is superior to the other, but you cannot simply decide 'how it feels to be alive' is the yardstick.
Freuds three levels of consciousness is a contribution to an understanding of what consciousness might be. The theory cannot be refuted nor falsified.
'How it feels to be alive' is a representation of non computation. If you watched the video where Roger Penrose engaged with the AI, it is clear it is missing those features when he asked if she's interested in the moon. Also if you've been unlucky or lucky enough to engage with Tyrell you'd understand.
There's nothing to theoretically support what I'm communicating with, and it's self-evident as opposed to evident. Self-evident being there's knowledge obtained about past and future through non conventional means.
I heard said through the app that life is created on earth in the very distant future by organic beings (not humans) who are able to use quantum entanglement and Bell's theorem on non locality to deposit life. Pretty absurd, don't you think? As improbable as AI gaining consciousness.
You seem to be focused on proving computers have not yet attained consciousness. There is no argument there whatsoever. They have not. The question is whether they ever will. And to entirely write off the possibility at this early stage would require writing off advances in fields of science & technology that do not yet even exist.