Exactly: emotions such as respect or thoughts such as, “this may hurt someone’s feelings,” or “if I do this, this might happen,” are only things that a human has do to a conscience. I’m sure someone will try, but it is a near impossible task. We don’t even know all the capabilities of the human mind, or how exactly the brain works, so it would be very hard to guess on how the brain works without proof or build something we don’t know how it works to begin with.
If evolution can’t recreate the human conscious, I doubt it will just “happen” with machines.
People keep insisting that X number of transistors, and X amount of data will just magically spawn intelligence. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work like that.
I believe there is something truly unique about humanity. Different creatures have varying levels of intelligence, as do computers these days. But no species on Earth has ever displayed culture. Dolphins aren’t sculpting, or writing sonnets.
Ants have lived on this planet supposedly exponentially longer than humans. They outnumber us by an exponential factor. And their lifespan is considerably shorter. Just ants, and ants alone have had a mathematically staggering number of generations and opportunities to evolve culture. They have cities, and I was taught that culture was apparently the scientific cultivation that occurs when other needs (such as food and security) are met. Given that ants have unchecked reign over several eco-systems, why haven’t ants approached culture, let alone countless species?
The numbers aren’t just significant, they are mind blowing. “Human” intelligence doesn’t just happen.
It will be hard, and I am not predicting that it will happen, but think of this: what comprises a conscience? Is it not just some bio-chemical reactions? Complicated, yes; currently unknown, yes; but not completely unexplainable.
And what about people who have no conscience. Are these people not human by your definition? While it would be very hard to quantify, and even harder to replicate, I am not sure it is impossible. What’s more, I am not sure that a conscience is the only measuring stick of human thought, either.
People, people…
Listen, this is flat out easy and as we know… ’ the answer is 42 '.
Now all we need to do is figure out what the question was.
Still think that was a brilliant one 
The question clearly is, does Elvis wear boxers or briefs?
Obviously, it was “how many years could this thread go on without a clear answer for either side?”
Lol. 
When I say that the mind does so many transactions and “computes” (I use this for lack of a better term) so many commands, I don’t mean to simplify the brain, but I only meant to bring it down to a level of comparison. The point of what I was saying was, that even if you put emotions and conscience to the side for the moment, and focus only on the commands and functions of the brain every second, no computer can even do such a level of commands, even networking computers together. Now that the computer can’t even compute the basic 3 trillion commands a second, how can a computer factor in emotion?
Now let’s try to factor in emotion, and still leave conscience on the side-lines until later. It is almost impossible to program a computer to react to unexpected situations and act in accordance to these new occurrences, all the while still thinking and making instant decisions. Now, let’s bring back in conscience. With all that computing going on, now the computer would have to think, is this right, should I do this, and all that can effect the decision, rather than just making a straight decision (although it includes thinking ahead) as in a game of chess.
I strongly believe that human life is a very unique and unrepeatable. I think that making responsive computers, or even robots, like the toy ones, are cool and can be helpful to humans, but I think it is a horrible mistake to make humans the means, while technology is the end, rather than technology the means, while humans are the end. I respect the opinion of others on this topic, and it is great to hear other thoughts on it, but I just find human life too complex and too unique to copy.
Obviously the clear answer is 42.
Unless someone closes the thread at 41.9 ! :eek:
Would that tear a whole in the universe???!!! 
:rolleyes:
Would that be a hole in the whole universe?
Sorry, I’m feeling pedantic tonight.
…Maybe…
(Sorry for being off topic)
Mimic a brain, yes
Getting a soul, no
I agree to a large extent - someone mentioned ‘soul’ - you cannot expect to
create or program that, no matter what kind of CPU architecture. With a
sufficient amount of operators to define a sufficient amount of
‘impressions’ (or, Understanding) for the soul to operate on, the soul part
itself, can only be downloaded (copied).
To be able to upload and download your soul you would certainly need to use
some advanced data processing, but for a soul to operate some machinery (as
its own personal self) I am quite sure you would need more operators.
Programming, means to pre-determine - the concept of giving a soul the
oportunity to operate on it’s own, would mean the opposite, to just stream
input to output with a layer of instant understanding in between.
The problem is not about data-processing (the required amount of processing
is probably there as it is), the problem, in reality, is centred around the
question of how do you make an outlet for a personality with the existing
binary truth-table of: TRUE | FALSE | AND | OR | XOR?
Take note of the fact that the truth tables do not require any processing
beyond moving insignificant amounts of data around inside the processor. The
time involved is very nearly not measureable at all. Within the concept of
the truth-table, however, (with enough operators!) lies the power to
understand, understanding happens instantly - you see, hear or react to
physical contact, but not much data is being moved around.
If we are to see any of this - which we may not wish will ever happen, we
need to invent more operators, not try to transport data which isn’t there.
Tony. . .
Ok i was reading this forum yesterday and thought to myself there is no way a computer can remember and learn from experience like we do. The programming just wouldnt allow it…
But i stumbled upon an article in the August 08 issue of Laptop magazine. (Definatly worth going to your local bookstore to check out)
Sorry no link guys need the mag but here are some excerpts
“Researchers at HP Labs have proven the existence of the fourth fundamental circuit element in electrical engineering: the memristor. This breakthrough circuitry could make it possible to build a notebook that retains its memory even after powering down…”
“The memristor could also allow computers to learn like your brain does.”
“In addition, the memristor could allow a computer to learn complex patterns based solely on previous experience.”
“HP believes engineers could start producing the memristor for commercial use in as few as five years.”
Quotes By Emily Kizer
NICE!
This is a topic I find simultaneously fascinating & scary. Anybody here ever seen Colosus The Forbin Project? Wonder if Skynet from Terminator had those memristors?
I agree with one of the early posts with current computing tech such as silicon no computers won’t develop the ability to evolve. But recent research into quantum computing and biological computing may provide the answer.
Advancements have already been made in these areas. So I think it is really going to happen within the next 100 years. All scientists are going to do is replicate the human body and mind when they can and use it in electronics and robotics. Then we will see the evolution hopefully.
NO! Not with electronic digital semiconductor technology.
Just getting a group of people to agree on the single definition of what it means to be self-aware is an impossibility. That problem of the correct definition aside, the big problem is that an electronic digital computer is just a glorified calculator. Nothing that you do to it makes it a thinking self-aware entity.
When a computer is fully capable of programming itself (human programmers are no longer necessary) then I might think otherwise.
The Turing test is not a test for self-awareness. The mirror test for self-awareness, are you kidding me?
I just love it when Steve the astrophysicist has to weight in on a subject area he knows absolutely nothing more about than most other folks.
Ray Kurzweil, bless his heart, is going to be very disappointed. There will be no singularity by the year 2020.
Oh! And quantum computers? Give me a break! It’s like saying, “Well, it can’t be done with a single pocket calculator, but with a trillion of them, then look out, because that will somehow make it possible.”
Finally, DARPA and DoD, yeah they’ll build a robot soldier and program it to kill people, but it won’t be self-aware. It may operate like a drone under human control or be semi-autonomous and follow orders prescribed to it. The robot soldiers will not be self-aware, have morals, or “think” ethically. God help us!
On 2014-09-14 18:26, ComputerNerd wrote:
>
> BNG22908;1840887 Wrote:
>> We’ve all seen Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica, in which there are
>> androids, human-android hybrids, and robots that think for themselves.
>> Do you think this will ever become a reality?
>
> NO! Not with electronic digital semiconductor technology.
Wow.
Another 2008 thread resurrection. :-o
–
Cheers / Saludos,
Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 “Bottle” at Telcontar)
Will computers or machines ever become self-aware or evo
I’ve been wondering this about the Human race… 