Poll: Is artificial awarenesss possible?

[Kortney]

To say something is "not possible" is sheer stupidity. People have been saying things "aren't possible" since the dawn of mankind, and each of them have tried to back it up with "reasons" why, that they don't even understand themselves. And every year, we prove one more person wrong. I'm sure people 100 years ago thought that traveling to the moon was impossible. I'm sure people 100 years ago would have believed that traveling kilometers in mere seconds was impossible. I'm not nearly big headed or ignorant enough to say something I don't understand and never will is impossible to achieve.

No one can say how much technology will advance.

 

[Threesan]

To say something is "not possible" is sheer stupidity. People have been saying things "aren't possible" since the dawn of mankind, and each of them have tried to back it up with "reasons" why, that they don't even understand themselves. And every year, we prove one more person wrong. I'm sure people 100 years ago thought that traveling to the moon was impossible. I'm sure people 100 years ago would have believed that traveling kilometers in mere seconds was impossible. I'm not nearly big headed or ignorant enough to say something I don't understand and never will is impossible to achieve.

No one can say how much technology will advance.

Well, you have something like Gödel's incompleteness theorems. Granted that is a vetted formal proof of impossibility whereas the wall/link-argument(s) are neither formal nor vetted.

Actually, Gödel's incompleteness theorems provide an interesting (analogical? or actual?) counterexample to a certain aspect of the wall/link-argument(s). This is a formal proof about what is provable. It is a demonstration of a formal system dealing with itself and formal systems like itself via abstraction. "Infinite" self-reference, arguably as perfectly as possible, in that the abstractions used contain or link formally/exactingly to all knowledge -- including the very definition -- of the self.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Technically no, but theoretically if you could create programming complex enough it could be mimicked to the point where it might as well exist.

 

[Maze1125]

By definition a qubit is a quantum representation of a bit, or binary integer. Measuring a qubit has exactly two possible outcomes: 0 or 1. Anything shifting the alignment away from exactly the angles representing 0 or 1 is error or randomness, and is discarded by the measurement.

What you're forgetting is that you don't have to measure in the |0>,|1> basis. Or, in fact, that you don't have to make a measurement at all until the end.

If you post a 0 into a junction of a normal computer, you will either get a 0 or a 1 out, dependent on that junction.
If you post a |0> into a junction of a quantum computer, it can produce a |0>, a |1>, or anything in-between, dependent on that junction. (Although, something in-between is a vector of the form a|0> + b|1>, not a number like 0.53)

 

[Reiokan]

I do not think that we as a human race will ever create a true thinking machine on the principal that I believe nothing a human creates is ever perfect.

Yet I do think that one day we will be able to put together the tech that leads to that machine becoming intelligent. Some ideas of how this might come to pass are already written down by some of the best Science Fiction writers of the time. Although most of these books can be taken as political discussion about the nature of "Human" if you look back amongst most of the posts in this thread that is the what the conversation comes down to in the end anyway.

What is human and can anything that a human create elevate its self to that same level?

 

[archvile93]

If nature can do it than why can't I?

 

[Threesan]

By definition a qubit is a quantum representation of a bit, or binary integer. Measuring a qubit has exactly two possible outcomes: 0 or 1. Anything shifting the alignment away from exactly the angles representing 0 or 1 is error or randomness, and is discarded by the measurement.

What you're forgetting is that you don't have to measure in the |0>,|1> basis. Or, in fact, that you don't have to can't make a measurement at all until the end.

If you post a 0 into a junction of a normal computer, you will either get a 0 or a 1 out, dependent on that junction.
If you post a |0> into a junction of a quantum computer, it can produce a |0>, a |1>, or anything in-between, dependent on that junction. (Although, something in-between is a vector of the form a|0> + b|1>, not a number like 0.53)

[small]That's fine, but I was pointing out that you're not talking about an outcome of a quantum bit anymore in that an a,b superposition is necessarily collapsed by measurement (any intermediate state being by definition not an outcome), to one of two possible values (if it's being used as a bit). Every run of an algorithm will produce (measure as) exactly one output per qubit: 0 or 1.

The 0,1 vectors are labels that we decide upon, and any two non-multiple quantum state vectors could serve as 0,1 -- any way we slice a binary measurement is a 0,1 in the end (and -- as with all 0,1s -- it is up to us to interpret their meaning, ostensibly accounting for their skewed basis relative to other measurements; I think of this more as removing a final rotate from the algorithm (qualgorithm?) and doing it mentally, rather than something special on its own).

Nevermind about that. I realize now that we were using "outcome" differently, and that "outcome of an operation" is a reasonable use (as opposed to "final outcome").[/small]

Disagreements about terminology aside, a classical discrete computer can operate on and output the same sets of a's and b's in sets of four values (a and b being complex; with the added bonus of not needing to collapse a,b into an output whenever you want a measurement; unless you're extoling analog computing, which I addressed previously). It is only in light of entanglement that QC's superpositions are particularly useful or special. However, entanglement is also computable by a classical discrete machine (which shouldn't be surprising, seeing as we have "non-quantum" maths formally describing our quantum computations). It's just that it's exponentially more costly (in n).

Also, http://www.quantiki.org/wiki/index.php/List_of_QC_simulators.

PS
While there is the implication in their equivalence that if a classical computer fundamentally cannot do something, then nor could a quantum computer, there is also the reverse implication that if a quantum computer could do awareness, then classical computing is fundamentally capable of doing it, as well.

There is one thing that a QC is fundamentally capable of that my desktop PC is not: true randomness (if such a thing exists) -- But I could buy a device to provide such functionality to my desktop PC, if I were so inclined.

 

[Spiner909]

I think it could be possible, yes.

 

[Maze1125]

stuff

I had a whole post worked out in my head to respond to that, but I've scrapped it in favour of saying this:

You are absolutely correct, bar a few minor technicalities that aren't worth arguing over.

 

[Captain Blackout]

We are the universe's local expression of awareness. The stuff of the universe has within the potential for life and awareness. By listening to the universe, utilizing greater and greater technology, we will achieve that which we would call artificial awareness. To deny the possibility is to say that we are created beings apart from the universe and that beings we create will not be invested with the spark of awareness. That's an incredibly bold claim to make. I'm a theist, and I'm convinced artificed (made by our hands, not artificial) intelligence and awareness are not only possible, but inevitable. I might be wrong, but it's not bloody likely unless the above bold statement is true.

snip

Your asking me to prove the future? That's a pretty hard task to do. A debate about whether something in the future will happen is on par with "Is there a god?" We can spend all day arguing or we can just realize that these are interpretations.

This debate is very simple but you are determined to ruffle some feathers, do you think Artificial Awareness is possible? I say no, you say yes. Then you followed up by calling my opinion wrong? I don't know why you are dragging out this, but you are determined to fight about opinions and not hard facts.

I see where Maze is coming from. There are those things we can't conclusively prove, but we can certainly show where the math leads to one extrapolation or another. This is precisely what Maze is pointing at. Just because I can't see something does not mean it isn't there, and if I'm going to claim "X does NOT exist, nor will it!" then I have made a statement of fact, not opinion. Either X is, can be, or will be, or not, in our macroscopic universe. Even if I can't prove anything about X, I have made a claim about the nature of X, as opposed to my opinion about X.

And I can ultimately teach a machine the difference..... Just give me enough time.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Why not call it Artificial Intelligence?
That means the same thing I'm pretty sure.

And it's a useless thing imho, we can think just fine ourselves.
If it would work out, it would be most dangerous, as any scifi ever made likes to point out.

 

[Premonition]

What is a brain but a computer? If you give an artificial intelligence, that's already equipped with the basics, the same amount of storage that a human has, and allow it to learn on its own, it might become aware and become an individual.

 

[Rainforce]

What is a brain but a computer? If you give an artificial intelligence, that's already equipped with the basics, the same amount of storage that a human has, and allow it to learn on its own, it might become aware and become an individual.

That. I mean, a personality is nothing else then the sum of all behaviour patterns we had learned... so yeah. it IS possible. even a machine can learn to believe to think it have something like "selfawareness"
(hey, it's my way of understanding it XD )

 

[keillord]

The only thing impossible is what has not yet been done. People never thought we could live in space or fly, but here we are today. It may not be in our lifetime but definately in the future.

 

[Shurikens and Lightning]

To say something is "not possible" is sheer stupidity. People have been saying things "aren't possible" since the dawn of mankind, and each of them have tried to back it up with "reasons" why, that they don't even understand themselves. And every year, we prove one more person wrong. I'm sure people 100 years ago thought that traveling to the moon was impossible. I'm sure people 100 years ago would have believed that traveling kilometers in mere seconds was impossible. I'm not nearly big headed or ignorant enough to say something I don't understand and never will is impossible to achieve.

No one can say how much technology will advance.

I agree with 99% of your post, I just want to put that out there before I say this.

But Artificial Awareness is a little more complicated than going to the moon. Awareness is nearly impossible to prove at this point. I can't even prove that I exist, for all I know we are in the matrix. Next I would have to prove that you exist, which is equally if not harder to prove. Finally, I would need to fabricate a robot's programming to be alive and use the same methods to prove that it has awareness.

There are some things that I could say that most likely will come true. We will go to mars, Scan the Ocean, Finish the war in the Middle east. But stuff like proving existence, Infinity, End of the Reality, and what's Outside the Universe. They are called impossible to answer for a reason. That is how I formed my opinion, not out of shear ignorance.

 

[Arachon]

To say something is "not possible" is sheer stupidity. People have been saying things "aren't possible" since the dawn of mankind, and each of them have tried to back it up with "reasons" why, that they don't even understand themselves. And every year, we prove one more person wrong. I'm sure people 100 years ago thought that traveling to the moon was impossible. I'm sure people 100 years ago would have believed that traveling kilometers in mere seconds was impossible. I'm not nearly big headed or ignorant enough to say something I don't understand and never will is impossible to achieve.

No one can say how much technology will advance.

So if I tell you faster than light travel is impossible, I'm being ignorant?

 

[mdk31]

It is absolutely possible. Awareness is merely a function (or rather, complex series of functions) of the brain. The brain is a physical object. With enough research and technology, an artificial brain can be reproduced. The mind, self-awareness, everything, is merely a complex information system.

 

[Janus Vesta]

Yes. It would just take a really, really, really long time to code.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If organic awareness could manifest through millions of years of incremental steps, blind trial and error really, then it's not unfathomable that we'd be able to intentionally build a synthetic awareness. Or, better yet, build a vessel for existing awareness that's sturdier than a fleshy brain. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a direct descendant of the x86 processor will ever be able to emulate human awareness, but if we tried, I'm sure we could accomplish in a thousand years what took earth 3.8 billion years.

 

[mdk31]

Yes. It would just take a really, really, really long time to code.

I don't think we'd code it. I think machines would code it. Machines that were in turn coded by earlier machines.