|
 zouden
Neuroscientist
 
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
 Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9806322 - 02/16/09 03:30 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No, it's not part of your argument. It's a premise that you are arguing from, and as such you should be able to back it up. What definition says that machines can't be sentient?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9806350 - 02/16/09 03:46 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you saying now that machines by definition cannot be sentient?
--------------------
 
|
 Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9806794 - 02/16/09 07:40 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
No, it's not part of your argument. It's a premise that you are arguing from, and as such you should be able to back it up. What definition says that machines can't be sentient?
I am not sure if normal computers ever can become sentient, due to the fundamental difference between symbol manipulation and neural nets.
But I do think it should be possible for artificial neural nets to become sentient.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,539
Last seen: 1 month, 10 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9806978 - 02/16/09 08:35 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i agree that contemporary computers are insufficient
But symbol manipulation is essentially any simulated manipulation, if you code the symbols effectively.
--------------------
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Poid]
#9807838 - 02/16/09 11:40 AM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Hehe yes u can not use an unsupported premise which directly stands in support with your conclusion, I think...
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 5,116
Loc: Between
Last seen: 2 days, 8 hours
|
|
D] By creating a new body, there is a new housing created for another soul, which will 'slip' into the 'new' body. By destroying ones old body, one sets one's original soul free, which can not slip into the new body, because it will be occupied already  
ps: startrek will be proven wrong 
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9808118 - 02/16/09 12:40 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
i agree that contemporary computers are insufficient
But symbol manipulation is essentially any simulated manipulation, if you code the symbols effectively.
Well, an algorithm might need to be processing through a neural net, in order to become aware of itself. I don't know if an algorithm that is processing through a normal computer processor can become aware of itself, no matter how fast the processor is.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 12:56 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9808401 - 02/16/09 01:22 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A neural net is an algorithm. It's usually implemented in hardware but you can write a software one too, if you like. A neural network of sufficient complexity (way beyond what we can make now) should, in theory, be sentient.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9808730 - 02/16/09 02:10 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
A neural net is an algorithm. It's usually implemented in hardware but you can write a software one too, if you like. A neural network of sufficient complexity (way beyond what we can make now) should, in theory, be sentient.
I agree that a neural net of sufficient complexity should be sentient, but I don't believe that the consciousness is the neural net. Rather, I believe that a neural net of sufficient complexity generates a field of consciousness, much like an electromagnet generates a magnetic field.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9808754 - 02/16/09 02:14 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
But a neural net is just a computer. How can it generate a field of consciousness? What is a field of consciousness?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9808856 - 02/16/09 02:29 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
But a neural net is just a computer. How can it generate a field of consciousness? What is a field of consciousness?
Well, let us say that there is some quantum field distributed over the entire universe. When neurons are interacting with each other, they leave traces in this field. In the area of your brain, this field becomes so polarized because of all the complex patterns left in this field from your neural activity, that it actually becomes self-aware.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 02:34 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9808900 - 02/16/09 02:35 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That seems like an unnecessarily complex hypothesis. Surely the interactions of the neurons themselves is sufficient? We have billions of neurons, and they all interact in a multitude of ways. I'd say there's easily enough combinatorial range there to encompass higher thought and self-awareness. That makes more sense than a quantum field, don't you agree?
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9808943 - 02/16/09 02:41 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
That seems like an unnecessarily complex hypothesis. Surely the interactions of the neurons themselves is sufficient? We have billions of neurons, and they all interact in a multitude of ways. I'd say there's easily enough combinatorial range there to encompass higher thought and self-awareness. That makes more sense than a quantum field, don't you agree?
Nope, because it wouldn't give you any unity. If there is just billions of neurons interacting in your head, that would make your head into an ant colony, and each neuron into an ant. You wouldn't feel any unity, you wouldn't feel like being one person, and you wouldn't be conscious. Just like an ant colony isn't conscious.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 02:50 PM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9809002 - 02/16/09 02:49 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
If ants could communicate with each other as fast as neurons can, then the colony might have some rudimentary consciousness. Though we can only speculate 
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9809037 - 02/16/09 02:54 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
If ants could communicate with each other as fast as neurons can, then the colony might have some rudimentary consciousness. Though we can only speculate
If so, then it would probably also be because they interacted with some background field. Communication in itself doesn't create unity, except for in the medium where all the communication is happening. I am the medium where all the communication between all the different neurons in my head is happening.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 2 years, 7 months
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Zanthius]
#9809056 - 02/16/09 02:56 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think I'll invoke Occam's Razor and stick with the idea that it's the neural network that sustains consciousness. That theory doesn't require the existence of a quantum field. It's much simpler.
--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Sventington
am what I am what I am what I am
Registered: 01/17/09
Posts: 532
Last seen: 10 months, 6 days
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9809066 - 02/16/09 02:57 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
What is a quantum field?
|
Zanthius
Ideologist
Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 1,159
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9809081 - 02/16/09 03:00 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
I think I'll invoke Occam's Razor and stick with the idea that it's the neural network that sustains consciousness. That theory doesn't require the existence of a quantum field. It's much simpler.
Well, your theory doesn't explain unity and consciousness. You simply "look the other way", and refuse to look into the problem of unity, as if unity doesn't exist. Well, if unity doesn't exist, then consciousness doesn't exist.
In this case, your Occam's Razor is only good for ignoring the fact that there is unity and consciousness.
I am not a billion neurons. I am ONE person. I am a field.
Edited by Zanthius (02/16/09 03:08 PM)
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area 
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: Noteworthy]
#9810651 - 02/16/09 08:09 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said:
Quote:
Poid said:
Are you serious? 
I essentially despise all cultures, for many reasons; my ideas are my own interpretations of what I'm exposed to.
are YOU serious? how do you think you came to be able to identify cultures as cultures at all?
By being exposed to them.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylan   fireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
Poid
deBunker
Registered: 02/04/08
Posts: 40,361
Loc: SF Bay Area
|
Re: Transporter hypothetical [Re: zouden]
#9810681 - 02/16/09 08:16 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
No, it's not part of your argument. It's a premise that you are arguing from, and as such you should be able to back it up. What definition says that machines can't be sentient?
That's not my premise, this is:
Quote:
It is not possible for a machine to possess consciousness
Quote:
ma⋅chine
1. a mechanical apparatus or contrivance; mechanism.
Quote:
me⋅chan⋅i⋅cal
1. having to do with machinery: a mechanical failure.
2. being a machine; operated by machinery: a mechanical toy.
3. caused by or derived from machinery: mechanical propulsion.
4. using machine parts only.
Quote:
sen⋅tient
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.
3. a person or thing that is sentient.
4. Archaic. the conscious mind.
The words "machine" and "sentient" are in no way synonymous, therefore, by definition, machines are not sentient, and sentient beings cannot be machines.
--------------------
Well I try my best to be just like I am, but everybody wants you to be just like them. -- Bob Dylanfireworks_god said:It's one thing to simply enjoy a style of life that one enjoys, but it's another thing altogether to refer to another person's choice as "wrong" or to rationalize their behavior as being pathological or resulting from some sort of inadequacy or failing so as to create a sense of superiority or separation as yet another projection of a personal fear or control issue.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
