Transcendence

[Ginkgo]

How do you differentiate what is written into the program by a human operator, and what the machine has created for itself? When the machine can create concepts that are beyond what is written into it's programs, then I would consider the possibility that it has become conscious. As long as it stays within the confines of the program as written by a human operator, it is only mimicking that operator, and nothing else, it is not self aware.

Again, you have hit upon another interesting point. In general terms you appear to be providing a possible solution to the materialist explanation for consciousness. The touted solution is the concept of supervenience. The basic argument is that modern day computers are more than just the sum total of their binary function. The fact that a computer allows you to communicate with me through a website is evidence of this. What you are seeing when you enact google is an example of lower level properties (algorithms, binary switches and other mechanisms) determining higher level properties. The screen you are you are looking at now.

At least, I think this is what you are getting at.

[David Handeye]

I haven't seen the movie, but I am assuming the suggestion is that it is possible to download our consciousness onto a computer. Proponents of strong AI claim this will be possible in the future. The interesting aspect from my point of view is that if such a thing were possible then it might be possible to live forever. Well, so long as there are computers.

In my opinion if we think we can down load consciousness in the form of a binary code then we are mistaken. At this stage such a system doesn't encapsulate awareness. On the other hand, given the future complexity of binary codes, will awareness emerge from such a system? Again, I don't think so, but if we choose to throw quantum computes into the future mix, then I can't say this won't be a game changer.

so Gingko, how would you prove to such a machine/computer/robot of having a consciousness? What would have you replied to its question?

[thedoc]

How do you differentiate what is written into the program by a human operator, and what the machine has created for itself? When the machine can create concepts that are beyond what is written into it's programs, then I would consider the possibility that it has become conscious. As long as it stays within the confines of the program as written by a human operator, it is only mimicking that operator, and nothing else, it is not self aware.

Again, you have hit upon another interesting point. In general terms you appear to be providing a possible solution to the materialist explanation for consciousness. The touted solution is the concept of supervenience. The basic argument is that modern day computers are more than just the sum total of their binary function. The fact that a computer allows you to communicate with me through a website is evidence of this. What you are seeing when you enact google is an example of lower level properties (algorithms, binary switches and other mechanisms) determining higher level properties. The screen you are you are looking at now.

At least, I think this is what you are getting at.

I would say no, a computer is not greater than the sum of it's parts. And as far as the internet and this website, it is only transmitting what a human has typed into the unit, the computer does not create beyond what the human has put into the machine. And I would submit that the machine is not even aware of the concepts and ideas that are presented here, it only transmits the symbols that humans can interpret as ideas and concepts. The machine doesn't know what it is doing, it only transmits a pattern of yes and no signals that it has no understanding of.

[thedoc]

I haven't seen the movie, but I am assuming the suggestion is that it is possible to download our consciousness onto a computer. Proponents of strong AI claim this will be possible in the future. The interesting aspect from my point of view is that if such a thing were possible then it might be possible to live forever. Well, so long as there are computers.

In my opinion if we think we can down load consciousness in the form of a binary code then we are mistaken. At this stage such a system doesn't encapsulate awareness. On the other hand, given the future complexity of binary codes, will awareness emerge from such a system? Again, I don't think so, but if we choose to throw quantum computes into the future mix, then I can't say this won't be a game changer.

so Gingko, how would you prove to such a machine/computer/robot of having a consciousness? What would have you replied to its question?

When a computer can take information and interpret that information, I might be willing to consider that it is aware. In the movie the computer still wasn't aware, there was a human consciousness in the machine that was not really part of the original machine, and the machine itself was not capable of that level of awareness.

I recently read a book that had this scenario as a sub-plot, "The Last Christian" by David Gragory. It took place in 2088 and the latest development of that time was a computer that humans could upload their consciousness into and live forever. In the end the Bad Guy uploaded his consciousness into a machine to escape prosecution, but because of a computer virus was destroyed instead, much like Transcendence.

Now I'm wondering where this idea first appeared in the Sci-Fi literature, and did that author get proper credit in these later retellings of the story?

[HexHammer]

When a computer can take information and interpret that information, I might be willing to consider that it is aware. In the movie the computer still wasn't aware, there was a human consciousness in the machine that was not really part of the original machine, and the machine itself was not capable of that level of awareness.

I recently read a book that had this scenario as a sub-plot, "The Last Christian" by David Gragory. It took place in 2088 and the latest development of that time was a computer that humans could upload their consciousness into and live forever. In the end the Bad Guy uploaded his consciousness into a machine to escape prosecution, but because of a computer virus was destroyed instead, much like Transcendence.

Now I'm wondering where this idea first appeared in the Sci-Fi literature, and did that author get proper credit in these later retellings of the story?

We have Electronic thermometers, are they aware?

We have endless of programs that can analyze stock exchange and can automatically invest millions and billions of dollars in mere sec, are they aware?
Weather programs are they aware?
Autopilots, are they aware?

I say no, because that require perception of awareness itself, which isn't programmed into the program. It's only automated processes.

[David Handeye]

Can you prove to have a consciousness...does not really make sense as a question. The phrasing should be "Can you prove that you are capable of consciousness?" Or, "Can you prove that you are conscious?" I think that's what was trying to be asked however I have not seen the movie.

Point is, consciousness is just another word for awareness. And how can we prove that we are aware? Well, quite simply I think, we can all agree that we are aware of each other. I can prove that I am conscious by being aware of this very question, and then answering it. By answering the question I have proved that I have listened to it, which then had a reaction to produce a corresponding answer. So then, the very act of listening and responding accordingly is proof of consciousness.

We can extend this to other life forms as well. Although plants and animals may not be "self" conscious. Who is to say that they are not capable of some awareness? When a fly lands on a venus fly trap, the venus fly trap is aware and immediately responds accordingly. Does this action prove the plant is conscious? I would say yes.

J.Krishnamute argues there is no 'my' consciousness, your consciousness, or their consciousness; but that there is only Consciousness, period. And it is a shared consciousness that we all experience in different ways and in varying degrees. You can observe this in human beings by noting how some people are not fully aware, not all there, so to speak. Sometimes we can all act like robots, especially while at work, unconsciously hammering out our repetitive, monotonous duties. While others are extremely aware and meticulously observant nearly all of the time. Which I think is a skill that we can all get better at by simply focusing on our breath, being fully attentive and remaining in the present moment.

Now where does consciousness come from? What is the very root of consciousness? Maybe this is another topic altogether, and I've written too much already lol. Good day.

Hi humblesoul,
No, you haven't written too much, and thank you.
I could almost agree with everything you wrote, but what about a solipsists? For a solipsist there is no outer consciousness, and awareness, even your very act of being aware of others could be an act of his own consciousness; and believing that there are other consciousness could be proved only by an act of faith. Once I had a discussion with a friend of mine about solipsism and radical skepticism (he was a fan of Hume's esse est percipi), and he told that. Ciao

[Ginkgo]

I haven't seen the movie, but I am assuming the suggestion is that it is possible to download our consciousness onto a computer. Proponents of strong AI claim this will be possible in the future. The interesting aspect from my point of view is that if such a thing were possible then it might be possible to live forever. Well, so long as there are computers.

In my opinion if we think we can down load consciousness in the form of a binary code then we are mistaken. At this stage such a system doesn't encapsulate awareness. On the other hand, given the future complexity of binary codes, will awareness emerge from such a system? Again, I don't think so, but if we choose to throw quantum computes into the future mix, then I can't say this won't be a game changer.

so Gingko, how would you prove to such a machine/computer/robot of having a consciousness? What would have you replied to its question?

The reply to this particular, he/she/it that claims to be conscious should be in the order of, "Well, I asked you first, you give me your proof and I will give you mine". The bottom line is that, he/she/it can only replay that consciousness has no proof. However, the proviso should be added that consciousness is the thing this particular entity knows more directly about than anything else in the world. Certainly, he/she/it can doubt that Morgan Freeman is conscious, but it cannot doubt it is conscious. Morgan Freeman's reply will be exactly the same.

[HexHammer]

The reply to this particular, he/she/it that claims to be conscious should be in the order of, "Well, I asked you first, you give me your proof and I will give you mine". The bottom line is that, he/she/it can only replay that consciousness has no proof. However, the proviso should be added that consciousness is the thing this particular entity knows more directly about than anything else in the world. Certainly, he/she/it can doubt that Morgan Freeman is conscious, but it cannot doubt it is conscious. Morgan Freeman's reply will be exactly the same.

Eeeeh, that would be magic! ...or should I say ..necromancy!!

[Ginkgo]

How do you differentiate what is written into the program by a human operator, and what the machine has created for itself? When the machine can create concepts that are beyond what is written into it's programs, then I would consider the possibility that it has become conscious. As long as it stays within the confines of the program as written by a human operator, it is only mimicking that operator, and nothing else, it is not self aware.

Again, you have hit upon another interesting point. In general terms you appear to be providing a possible solution to the materialist explanation for consciousness. The touted solution is the concept of supervenience. The basic argument is that modern day computers are more than just the sum total of their binary function. The fact that a computer allows you to communicate with me through a website is evidence of this. What you are seeing when you enact google is an example of lower level properties (algorithms, binary switches and other mechanisms) determining higher level properties. The screen you are you are looking at now.

At least, I think this is what you are getting at.

I would say no, a computer is not greater than the sum of it's parts. And as far as the internet and this website, it is only transmitting what a human has typed into the unit, the computer does not create beyond what the human has put into the machine. And I would submit that the machine is not even aware of the concepts and ideas that are presented here, it only transmits the symbols that humans can interpret as ideas and concepts. The machine doesn't know what it is doing, it only transmits a pattern of yes and no signals that it has no understanding of.

I agree that a computer is not greater than the sum of it parts. If this were the case then we would have an be an emergent theory of awareness. Supervenience, is not a emergent theory of awareness. Well, not at this stage anyway.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience

[Ginkgo]

The reply to this particular, he/she/it that claims to be conscious should be in the order of, "Well, I asked you first, you give me your proof and I will give you mine". The bottom line is that, he/she/it can only replay that consciousness has no proof. However, the proviso should be added that consciousness is the thing this particular entity knows more directly about than anything else in the world. Certainly, he/she/it can doubt that Morgan Freeman is conscious, but it cannot doubt it is conscious. Morgan Freeman's reply will be exactly the same.

Eeeeh, that would be magic! ...or should I say ..necromancy!!

Interesting comment.

I guess it servers to highlight the phenomenological aspect of consciousness is not verifiable from a third person perspective.I can't prove to you that I am conscious and you cannot prove to me that you are conscious. And that's about as far as it goes. I think you are conscious and you probably think I am conscious. Based on our own experiences we can ascertain with a high degree of confidence that machine are not aware.

Aware in the sense that a machine doesn't know what it is like to be in a phenomenological state.

[Ginkgo]

Point is, consciousness is just another word for awareness. And how can we prove that we are aware? Well, quite simply I think, we can all agree that we are aware of each other. I can prove that I am conscious by being aware of this very question, and then answering it. By answering the question I have proved that I have listened to it, which then had a reaction to produce a corresponding answer. So then, the very act of listening and responding accordingly is proof of consciousness.

Interesting point. Awareness is one aspect of consciousness, but it doesn't exhaust the extent of consciousness. Phenomenological awareness being the case in point.

We can extend this to other life forms as well. Although plants and animals may not be "self" conscious. Who is to say that they are not capable of some awareness? When a fly lands on a venus fly trap, the venus fly trap is aware and immediately responds accordingly. Does this action prove the plant is conscious? I would say yes.

True, but in this respect there are degrees of awareness. We could say that a plant is aware, but it is not phenomenologically aware. In other words, a plant doesn't know what it is like to be a plant.

J.Krishnamute argues there is no 'my' consciousness, your consciousness, or their consciousness; but that there is only Consciousness, period. And it is a shared consciousness that we all experience in different ways and in varying degrees. You can observe this in human beings by noting how some people are not fully aware, not all there, so to speak. Sometimes we can all act like robots, especially while at work, unconsciously hammering out our repetitive, monotonous duties. While others are extremely aware and meticulously observant nearly all of the time. Which I think is a skill that we can all get better at by simply focusing on our breath, being fully attentive and remaining in the present moment.

I think this raises the problem of being conscious without having experience.

[David Handeye]

The reply to this particular, he/she/it that claims to be conscious should be in the order of, "Well, I asked you first, you give me your proof and I will give you mine". The bottom line is that, he/she/it can only replay that consciousness has no proof. However, the proviso should be added that consciousness is the thing this particular entity knows more directly about than anything else in the world. Certainly, he/she/it can doubt that Morgan Freeman is conscious, but it cannot doubt it is conscious. Morgan Freeman's reply will be exactly the same.

I asked you first, perhaps this is one of the best answer I got till now. But I can't believe we cannot give a fucking answer to that fucking machine!, we can, we must put it knock down, we are humans!

(Off topic, are you Australian Gingko?)

[Ginkgo]

The reply to this particular, he/she/it that claims to be conscious should be in the order of, "Well, I asked you first, you give me your proof and I will give you mine". The bottom line is that, he/she/it can only replay that consciousness has no proof. However, the proviso should be added that consciousness is the thing this particular entity knows more directly about than anything else in the world. Certainly, he/she/it can doubt that Morgan Freeman is conscious, but it cannot doubt it is conscious. Morgan Freeman's reply will be exactly the same.

I asked you first, perhaps this is one of the best answer I got till now. But I can't believe we cannot give a fucking answer to that fucking machine!, we can, we must put it knock down, we are humans!

(Off topic, are you Australian Gingko?)

Provided the machine is not conscious of course. And yes, I am an Australian.

[David Handeye]

Wonderful Australia! I gotta lots of friends over there.

[Ginkgo]

Wonderful Australia! I gotta lots of friends over there.

Where abouts?