Do you think that we will ever create something that is self-aware?

[BigToque]

Do you feel that our technology will ever become so advanced that it will become it's own entity? Being able to think, understand, question and choose?

 

[Vee]

If you by "think", "understand", "question" and "choose" mean something resembling human behavior, while performing under influence of instincts, activities commonly labeled "think", "understand", "question" and "choose", then - yes.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: Vee
If you by "think", "understand", "question" and "choose" mean something resembling human behavior, while performing under influence of instincts, activities commonly labeled "think", "understand", "question" and "choose", then - yes.

A machine is only as good as it is programmed.. so technically, yes computers nowadays can be programmed to have consciousness but it can take days for it to compute that whereas it takes humans a few seconds.

 

[Colt45]

I don't think it would be a good idea.. It would feel sorry for itself and revolt

 

[soccerballtux]

or it might wonder why it was created and dismay when it realizes it has no ultimate significance.

 

[BitByBit]

I seriously doubt it.
Just how consciousness arises from the brain is still a mystery.
Quantum theory is even being used to try and explain this phenomena, but has met little success thus far.
As far as machines and sentience goes, I don't doubt that one day machines will be able to simulate consciousness and appear self-aware, but that is as far as it will go.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: BitByBit
As far as machines and sentience goes, I don't doubt that one day machines will be able to simulate consciousness and appear self-aware, but that is as far as it will go.

Now me, I somewhat doubt we (humans) do any more than simulate consciousness, and maybe only appear self-aware, so if it's good enough for us, it's good enough for machines.

 

[Promethply]

AFAIK so far, no one has made a system that passed the Turing Test.

 

[bsobel]

yes computers nowadays can be programmed to have consciousness but it can take days for it to compute that whereas it takes humans a few seconds.

:roll:

 

[MyK Von DyK]

Hmm, consciousness - is that like two or more possibilities fighting each other for which one is more appropriate at any given circumstance? I think we still need to answer what consciousness exactly is. Once we've done that I can code it for you if you'd still whish having something like "conscious screensaver".

There are also shortcuts to this problem - we could acknowledge the fact that we have none

 

[SVT Cobra]

I would imagine it would be hard to program something to be self-aware, when we do not understand it...eventually we will....but by then we will be an extinct species and a far greater more advanced beyond our comprehension species will know what it is, (and example an ant to a human.....a human to a ??????????)

if theres not such a species out there already..lol ;-))........of course people used to say timetravel was not possible.....

EDIT: w00ps i meant landing on the moon sorry im a bit tired lmao

 

[DrPizza]

There's a point where there's too much technology. Hopefully we figure out where that line is before we cross over the line. (hopefully we already haven't)

 

[onix]

Originally posted by: BitByBit
I seriously doubt it.
Just how consciousness arises from the brain is still a mystery.
Quantum theory is even being used to try and explain this phenomena, but has met little success thus far.
As far as machines and sentience goes, I don't doubt that one day machines will be able to simulate consciousness and appear self-aware, but that is as far as it will go.

I bothers me to no end that scientists try to discover, and get government support for finding "life", or rather create "life" -- when we repeat experiments that replicate what happened during earth's history to generate life, it so bogus without a definition for consciousness.

And what with the stupidity of trying to find life on Mars -- as we know what life really is... gimme a break.

Thes articles from the MIT TechReview were pretty interesting, and seem useful to this discussion:

Roger Scruton, "The Unobservable Mind"

Robert Hazen, "The Great Unknown: Readers Respond"