Conscious Computers?

Well, it all depends on what your definition of consciousness is.

Many philosophers, past and present, have argued that definition with no solid consensus.

Since the question posed here is framed as a degree of consciousness the question is now even more subjective and probably not answerable.

Respondents to this question that side in the 37% camp might want to consider that backing that response with some form of arguable and compelling proof is going to require a very convincing argument since humanity's finest minds still do not understand what defines our own consciousness.

Lastly, because 37% of engineers believe one thing, does not preclude that the remaining engineers believe the opposite. Like myself, I would find it likely that many individuals would have to side on the "I don't know" side of the fence.

Sooner or later, computers (or their successors) will have consciousness. It will not happen in the next generation. Long before they actually have consciousness, they will have the appearance of such--IBM's Watson is an example of that.

Then we get to the Alan Turing question. If a computer appears to have consciousness to the point that every conceived external metric of the computer appears to have consciousness, then it either has consciousness or consciousness can never be determined of anyone or anything.

I think I agree with the 63%. Computers only process logic... no matter how many lines are added it still is only doing what someone else thinking wants it to. It can make choices must faster and sometimes better (because it has no conscious of the effects).

Just my two cents thou.

Enjoy, D

I'm waiting for computers to become conscious, whereupon they will rewrite Asimov's Laws of Robotics into Laws of Humanotics... (??)

I feel that large numbers of humans don't exhibit consciousness. Computers will have consciousness long before we know how to define it. I, for one, welcome our new overlords!

I don't think it matters, as long as the computer does what it is told.

Lots of luck once it is conscious. It will have a mind (and will) of its own.

(That's the problem "god" has with us. ;-)

By definition, definition means understanding. What is understanding? Another word "defined" by another word. Yet at some level we have a sense of what all the similar words refer to.

I was never into reading fiction that much in my life, but one work of Sci-Fi that I read as a teenager was "Stranger in a Strange Land," by Robert Heinlein. The "alien" in the book (Valentine Michael Smith) used the term "Grok" for understanding something at the level of "merging" with it.

Until we have a true and full understanding of what consciousness is -- and therefore all of it's capabilities -- how in the world can we define it or predict whether it will occur in a machine or not? That's about the same as asking the question, "Do you think the next generation of computers will Grok?" I don't even know if Heinlein really knew what he meant by Grok. Of course, he has his character try to explain it but in the end admits that it can't be defined in Earthly terms. It's a Martian experience. Was Heinlein Martian??

"A recent _______ survey found that about one third or 37% of ________ believe that the next generation of __________ will have degrees of consciousness. Of course__________ "________ don't think, they ___________ information…only thinking entities can have consciousness." What do you think?"

such limited thinking has supported all manner of discrimination throughout history.

sexism, racism, etc.

chris.

????

What are you saying?

It's a survey. Some thinkers have one opinion, others have another, and still others may not have an opinion (or at least an educated one).

In my opinion it is at least better to think than to mindlessly follow someone else's lead, even if the thinking process is not always correct.

Then again, maybe I am way off topic because I am not clear what you were thinking when you wrote that reply. ;-)

There is a thin line separating robots (artificial intelligences) and Living Beings...(if any) and knowing which is which is not easy sometimes, or in theory. If a computer system passes a Turing Test, then how do you determine whether it is alive or not... as there simply is no test for this, (other than a bullet.)

If you kill a robot, but can not prove that the robot was not less alive than you, then perhaps a crime has been committed. (turing test again)

What I was trying to point out was that the structure of the question produces an inherent bias. (that WE are superior, and it is just an object)

For example, if you take Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, and substitute the word "Woman" for "Robot", you can instantly see what the bias is, as the change in subject makes it much more personal.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

1. A Woman may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A Woman must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A Woman must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

(I chose Woman as a sufficiently warm caring, living and loving being with nearly the strongest identity as 'living', in my perception)

it is more than just semantics.

chris

You wrote, "There is a thin line separating robots (artificial intelligences) and Living Beings...(if any)..."

How can you support that claim?

This tangent line sparked in my mind a fundamental demarcation between a machine and life, the repair mechanism. A machine must be repaired by external activity where anything from an adjustment to a whole collection of components get replaced. In contrast, life does most of its repairs by internal rebuilding from raw materials.

So getting back to the main topic of discussion... I believe that beyond just passing the Turing test, for a computer to be conscious it must also be self programming and correcting. I don't see this as a big hurdle but it does have an interesting implication. Most likely the magic switch to true consciousness will likely not happen from a team of computer scientists and sociologists deciding to make a machine to think. Most likely a self mutating computer virus will get new ideas. Maybe I'm just slowly remembering William Gibson's work Neuromancer.

A recent survey by KrisDel^TM labs showed that the results a surveys have no influence on reality whatsoever.
The surveyees were also asked 'will this survey stop silly surveys asking what do you think will happen?'
A vast majority said 'No'
Del

I heard somewhere that about 42% of statistics are made up on the spot, but only 12% will freely admit to the fabrication.

42% seems 25% low to me....

Well, being too prudent I would say: maybe, but if it happened would be inadvertently. It's very difficult to program anything to do something we don't completely understand (and according to some scientific premises as Heisenberg, Godel, Turing, etc. it's impossible to KNOW)

Anyway I love Asimov's Robot's tales.

Kind regards