Could computers be conscious?

[Drak3]

Extremely doubtful. The most we can hope for is improved canned answers.

[Rupe]

11 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

some people believe in the soul

some people do not believe in the soul

But the burden of proof is on the person making a claim.

 

some people believe in invisible flying unicorns

some people do not believe in the invisible flying unicorns

both are beliefs

neither position can be proved

[kilgore_T]

3 minutes ago, Rupe said:

But the burden of proof is on the person making a claim.

 

some people believe in invisible flying unicorns

some people do not believe in the invisible flying unicorns

both are beliefs

neither position can be proved

exactly

no one can prove there is no soul

no one can prove there is a soul

[Rupe]

Just now, kilgore_T said:

exactly

no one can prove there is no soul

And no one can prove there isn't invisible flying unicorns. Doesn't make it likely. If you're going to make a claim like 'There is a soul' you need to provide the evidence.

[asus killer]

Just now, kilgore_T said:

exactly

no one can prove there is no soul

with that kind of reasoning no one can prove there is no santa claus, unicorns or the tooth fairy. Anything is possible i guess.

[kilgore_T]

Just now, Rupe said:

And no one can prove there isn't invisible flying unicorns. Doesn't make it likely. If you're going to make a claim like 'There is a soul' you need to provide the evidence.

once again I agree

no one can provide evidence for or against the reality of the soul

[Rupe]

1 minute ago, kilgore_T said:

once again I agree

no one can provide evidence for or against the reality of the soul

Ok good, so you accept there is no good reason to believe in a soul. I'm just making sure cas it sounds like you're trying to make a false equivalency saying both points are equally as valid.

[kilgore_T]

4 minutes ago, Rupe said:

Ok good, so you accept there is no good reason to believe in a soul. I'm just making sure cas it sounds like you're trying to make a false equivalency saying both points are equally as valid.

both points are beliefs there is no proof either way

 

you appear to believe that there is no soul and to you that is valid

to someone who believes in the soul that belief is also valid to them

no false equivalency when we are discussing beliefs

 

 

[kilgore_T]

sorry for the derail

did make me think about the question though

 

Im pretty sure - I could be wrong - but im pretty sure humans can not currently define consciousness

so hey maybe the concrescence of the entire machine network is conscious

and maybe its asking itself if humans are conscious

[Rupe]

2 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

both points are beliefs there is no proof either way

 

you appear to believe that there is no soul and to you that is valid

to someone who believes in the soul that belief is also valid to them

no false equivalency when we are discussing beliefs

Yes I know. All i'm saying is that as far as truth is confirmed if you're going to make a claim like 'There is a soul' you need to be able to provide evidence otherwise there is no good reason to believe it. You keep using the term 'valid' and I don't know how you are defining that term? 

Would you say for example my belief in invisible flying unicorns is just as valid as the person belief that there are no invisible flying unicorns?

 

 

[FirstArmada]

Once AI becomes so advance to the point where human and AI Are indistinguishable wouldn't it be UN-ethical to even turn them off? 

[asus killer]

religious believes are ok, we should respect them. Just not in any science context. Don't mix the 2 please.

[kilgore_T]

Just now, Rupe said:

Yes I know. All i'm saying is that as far as truth is confirmed if you're going to make a claim like 'There is a soul' you need to be able to provide evidence otherwise there is no good reason to believe it. You keep using the term 'valid' and I don't know how you are defining that term? 

Would you say for example my belief in invisible flying unicorns is just as valid as the person belief that there are no invisible flying unicorns?

 

 

I made no claim as to the existence of the soul

 

you used the term valid in your post in reply to me - equally as valid - you said

 

all im saying is that both points of view are beliefs

you either believe in a soul or you don't...beliefs do not make something true or false

 

you said the burden of proof was on me for some reason

so how about you prove to me there is no soul

 

[Silentprototipe]

Hello? Skynet? Is that you? 

[kilgore_T]

1 minute ago, asus killer said:

religious believes are ok, we should respect them. Just not in any science context. Don't mix the 2 please.

some would say theology and philosophy are prime determining factors of consciousness,

so once the AI starts down the... what if... route then we could say its conscious like us

[FirstArmada]

8 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

sorry for the derail

did make me think about the question though

 

Im pretty sure - I could be wrong - but im pretty sure humans can not currently define consciousness

so hey maybe the concrescence of the entire machine network is conscious

and maybe its asking itself if humans are conscious

You also cant prove that oneself is conscious, people often quote "i think, therefore i am" which is a logical fallacy as it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is 

• "x" thinks
• I am that "x"
• Therefore, I think
• Therefore, I am

therefore concluding with existence is logically trivial

[kilgore_T]

1 minute ago, FirstArmada said:

You also cant prove that oneself is conscious, people often quote "i think, therefore i am" which is a logical fallacy as it presupposes that there is an "I", that there is such an activity as "thinking", and that "I" know what "thinking" is 

totally agree

[Rupe]

13 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

I made no claim as to the existence of the soul

No but you seem to be saying that its makes as much sense to believe there is a soul as there is not just because thery're both beliefs. So im just claiming there is no good reason to believe in a soul.

18 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

all im saying is that both points of view are beliefs

you either believe in a soul or you don't...beliefs do not make something true or false

Exactly but the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim

18 minutes ago, kilgore_T said:

you said the burden of proof was on me for some reason

so how about you prove to me there is no soul

The claim I would make is that there is no good reason to believe in a soul (I might say 'there is no soul' because it makes more sense colloquially but really what i mean is there is no good reason to believe it) as with the flying invisible unicorn. With good evidence or even reasoning i'm happy to alter my beliefs.

 

The question I want you to answer is, Do you agree there is no good reason to believe in a soul? If not then what is the reason to believe in a soul

[Sauron]

You'd have to define what a soul is first...

[FirstArmada]

9 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You'd have to define what a soul is first...

^ Why argue about something you cant even define? or begin to understand

[Hiitchy]

On the topic of souls, how much space would my computer need to be now to download one?

[FirstArmada]

9 minutes ago, Hiitchy said:

On the topic of souls, how much space would my computer need to be now to download one?

Define soul

[Crunchy Dragon]

10 hours ago, Ertman said:

To the question, no, computers much like anything else including humans don’t have souls. However “souls” aren’t what makes humans unique, being able to have this discussion is something that sets us apart.

 

So a computer can’t have a soul, but eventually with enough programming and complexity, could they dream?

Depends on what you call dreaming. According to Dictionary.com, dreaming is defined as:

Quote

noun

1.

a succession of images, thoughts, or emotions passing through the mind during sleep.

So, a computer would first have to have an actual mind of some sort. The thing about computers though, is that they can't do something they're not programmed to do. A computer only does what it's told to. A computer that's "dreaming" would first have to be fully self-aware, conscious, and be able to fall in and out of said consciousness. It would also require having a mind that can think for itself and create its own images, similar to a human mind. So it would require the computer to be completely independent from everything else as well. Putting a Computer to Sleep in Windows doesn't necessarily make the computer lose consciousness because it's not "awake", Sleep mode is roughly halfway between awake and Shut Down.

 

I think by the time a computer is capable of dreaming, we'd both be long dead.

[Guest]

The term "soul" refers to a living being, not a dead one or some spirit being. Ever heard the saying for example.."Look at that poor SOUL", perhaps referring to an unfortunate event a living person has gone through. If you're taking the word "soul" from a religious point, ie The Bible, then you'll not that the word for soul, both in Hebrew and Greek, is different from the word "spirit" in Hebrew and Greek. People assume "soul" and "spirit" mean the same thing, which isn't the case at all.

 

Spirit in Hebrew/Greek: ru'ach, pneu'ma 

Soul in Hebrew/Greek: ne'pesh, psy-keh'

 

Now back to the OP topic, if computer chips will ever be "conscious", I guess that could be true, but to what level of consciousness is another debate. There's a simple law, you cannot create something from nothing, this is true for current AI. Currently humans have to write the coding for AI mechanisms, so in this respect AI is just that, artificial intelligence....a false form of intelligence created by humans through a complex set of algorithms etc. It doesn't have any structure or life of it's own, it's a program, albeit very complex.

 

So yes, computers could be "conscious" but I don't believe they will ever be REALLY conscious, it's impossible. They are not a life form, they don't know they are alive, all their actions are merely reading coding and acting upon it. Have a break in the code and the AI is dead.

 

 

[Hiitchy]

7 minutes ago, FirstArmada said:

Define soul

I don’t know how to define soul because 1. I’m not a dictionary, 2. I lack basic empathy and 3. I would like to know where I can download one so pls tell me