Imagine that a supercomputer with a really, really, really, really fast processor existed - and had a lot of storage space, even more than Google has. Now - suppose that we somehow got ten thousand of the world’s best programmers together; who coded in a virtual 3d world, and a sperm, and egg, both complete with atoms arranged exactly as they would be in real life; they have full DNA. Suppose the programmers also coded in some virtual food and air and water, and all laws of physics, biology, and chemistry. Now - we make a simulation of all the equipment that’s needed for in vitro fertilization; and make the sperm go into the egg, and we start this simulation; so that our virtual baby’s cells start to differentiate and his brain forms, along with all of his other organs - after like two years - would we have created a fully conscious being?
We could now add a simulation of a tv in to that world, and interact with the baby through a webcam - just as we interact with babies here. The things the baby experiences through the tv would form new neuronic connections in his brain. We could teach him English and French by immersing him.
Supposing our simulation was perfect; would this thing now be able to think for itself and derive new knowledge from existing knowledge? laugh? cry? would this thing start wondering about where it came from and what life is? would this thing be aware of it’s consciousness? would it be?
Good topic. I think we can reasonably conclude that if the merger of two human gemetes combined with a gestation period in the womb produces a self-conscious living being (after a period of growth outside of the womb) then it should be possible to sufficiently re-create the conditions which gave rise to this self-conscious living entity. It is more a question of when, not if, science will ultimately give birth to artificial self-awareness.
But imagine how deeply complex the human nervous system is… I think we are still a long way off from achieving a semblance of this depth and complexity of organization with our scientific instruments.
I don’t think so, because I have no reason to think computer code can result in consciousness, feeling, and emotions, independent thought, that biological material can. A great simulation, yes. The real deal? No. I need a good reason to think this is possible and replicating the consequences of DNA through computer code isn’t good enough.
I don’t know all that much about binary code, but…well, humans program computers to do what they’re told, yes? It’s a machine…so, as I so often scream at my computer, it should “DO WHAT I TELL YOU TO DO!!!”
In answer to the OP, even if all of that was possible, the necessary code would still be designed and implemented by humans, and would include specific instructions as to how the machine should respond/act in a given situation. Perhaps it could be made to mimic life so closely that one could hardly tell the difference, but at the end of the day it is still only doing what it was designed to do rather than making sentient choices.
Then again, I’m not the brightest crayon in the box. Perhaps I’m looking at this from too simplistic a perspective.
I spend quite a bit of time on ILP when I’m at work, yes.
Oftentimes I have spreadsheets/databases/gov’t email open on my dual-screen and am working and fucking around on here at the same time. I run around quite a bit, but my habit is to be as quick and efficient as possible, so I’m not usually away from my desk for extended periods of time.
man, thinking about the relationship between matter and consciousness just fucking blows my mind.
i was standing over my stove cookin some soup thinking about it all, from like a really weird angle that i can’t even put into words, and my brain started like overflowing, and all of a sudden i jumped into the air, threw my arms up to the sky and yelled “IT’S FUCKING AMAZING!”
Lets start with the most basic life forms.
Amoeba’s move on its own/quantum particles move on their own accord
New molecules are formed through the nature of physics/ new amoeba’s are formed through the nature of (biological) physics
add billions of years of evolution?
Its not so bad if you start from the beginning eh?
let’s substitute the words:
“instructions” with “scientific laws”
“universe” with “machine”
“should respond/act” with “effects it’s own state”
“situation” with “cause”
Sound familiar?
Yes… but we wouldn’t be directly coding in the end result, we won’t be “designing” each choice of it.
Do you know what fractals are? stellaralchemy.com/lee/fract … ctal44.gif
They start out with a few simple instructions - and turn into a complicated pattern of patterns. If the laws of nature are programmed into the machine; the virtual human should grow (from a single cell) in the same way it would in real life - we’re not painting a picture here, we’re letting it paint itself.
Let’s go further and say it is possible to simulate a universe. A simple one compared to our own, of course.
At first it would take a huge computer, massive resources… but once the work has been done, the hardware improves, it gets simpler. Within a century, everyone can have a universe running on their laptop, just to tinker about and intervene in as they see fit, or to let grow untouched if they lean more to deist theology and fancy themselves a divine watchmaker.
With all these millions of universes ticking away quietly, virtually, what’s the likelihood that what we call our universe isn’t a simulation?
There is nothing miraculous, inherently unknowable or “magical” about consciousness or self-consciousness. Organisms are the most complex beings in existence; when that complexity reaches a certain threshhold it becomes able to sense its own structure with enough accuracy and depth that a model emerges which is a sufficient reflection of this inner world of processes and functions. This is the emergence of consciousness, which is an awareness of (a being sensitive to) self. To be conscious is only to be aware of oneself, which is no different than being aware of any other sensed experience. Chairs are “aware” of your presence sitting on them because your presence exerts effects on the chair, puts force on it. But a chair lacks the dynamic complexity of organic systems that would allow the chair to intricately reproduce and internally model the various changes in energetic force that occur with your influencing the chair through sitting on it. This raw force of your sitting down is, in an organism, delicately absorbed and threaded, split and refined and transferred into innumerable energetic channels via molecular structures, in order to divide this force and let it do “work” toward the ends of the organism’s biological needs. Of course sitting on a chair is only a metaphor here.
The point is that organic systems are able to achieve sufficient self-referential complexity and depth that the force of their own being (their formative systems and processes and mechanisms) is able to in a real way change this being itself - their highest levels of perceptual information cognition modeling and behavioral processing algorithms are affected by minute and subtle changes in the inner workings of these very same systems themselves. There is no reason why in theory we could not develop such complex organizations artificially, with computers or perhaps other means. The wright brothers may never have thought one could go to the moon in a machine, but their own inventions and ideas ultimately played a part in such a creation. Right now, we cannot conceive of how via technology we could produce another self-aware, thinking and feeling life form like ourselves, but nonetheless the precursors of such an entity already exist in computer technology, nanotechnology, bioengineering, robotics, what have you. Our sciences are the precursors that are developing toward this eventual end, just as going to the moon is an eventual link in the chain of which the development of the airplane is an essential part.
The op seams to be creating a human with a different interface to the external world, I would presume that to be no different to any other human, in that conditions which form consciousness are created in the very same way they are for us.
Perhaps if instead of using biology we created artificial nerves ~ and thence neurons, mapped exactly to a real human brain, then that would attain consciousness artificially.
As long as we don’t replace ourselves with artificial human zombies, then that sounds fine. First we must know what consciousness is apart from the mechanisms, or we may create what we think are conditions for consciousness and ones that seam in every way to us to be conscious, but there may be something critical we are missing [consciousness itself].
Consciousness itself may only connect with organic entities [e.g. the info derived of them], such that even a few nerve bundles in a jellyfish would have consciousness, and a super intelligent robot have none.
TTG
Can a camera attached to a computer truly perceive itself simply by ‘knowing’ what it looks like? …irrespective of the resolution, sotware and hardware.
seams to me there is nothing there ‘knowing’ and experiencing that.
