|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Can computers be made to feel? (Read 4516 times)
|
|
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
For the purposes a computer is intended for, consciousness and self-awareness are hardly necessary. Machine intelligence is fundamentally different. Our brains use electrical transmissions, to be sure, but the way our brains process that information is far different from the way a computer works. In theory, a duplicate of the human brain could be built, but, at current technology levels, the network of computers to make the number of links required to mimic the way it functions would have to be so immense, the structure used to house it would be impossibly large.
Think of it this way. If an algorithm allowed a robot sniper to react instantaneously and shoot targets 100% accurately whereas even the most skilled human equivalents could not, should anyone care to make said robots more like us? Personally, I think people should be focusing on taking advantage of the advantages computers already have. We'd be able to keep them as slaves for as long as we wanted; they would not have the feelings to care. Hence why making the Androsynth was such a bad idea. Robots are more obedient.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
Defender
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 817
|
A T-800 would like to have a word with you...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarin
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 801
|
Both simulations are current technology. It will only take longer (probably, much longer) to evolve AI physically. But it still is current tech.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Can they be made to feel? Yes. We are, at root, implemented in matter just like they are. Can it happen by accident? No, not really. It'd be quite an effort. The neural networks and such would be a start, but it'll be a long road, and we can't be sure when we've gotten there.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
Sure, computers can be made to feel, but there's no reason to. They can solve problems with absolute logic just fine, and besides, implementing emotions could start a cybernetic revolt.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valos Cor
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 154
|
This is a hard question...if you think about it one way, they can't. They get sensory input and they compute an output. They just run the script, not make it. Then again...I read in Seed Magazines about Project Blue Brain (2008) where they were trying to build a computer from the bottom up. They'd input neuron interactions and behaviors on a huge scale (of a small "slice" of a mouse's brain) and then they'd try to simulate it.
Long story short: they eventually had a sort of small network where the neuron's came together and fired their communications with remarkable timing and accuracy. (they plan on having like a sort of robot mouse so that the computer had a robot to get sensory input and move around. They even said that if it works, it will be a great discovery. If doesn't, then the question would be: "Why? What are we missing?") Basically, they're still code. Yet, one could argue that so are we. One could argue that we are not (but that is not the discussion here). Though, it did take HUGE amounts of power, and humans only run on, what? 10-20 watts? Our brains aren't the size of a house. Though, at the rate technology is speeding along, maybe soon.
The thing is, what's the point? Do we really need artificial intelligence to do everything for us? I mean, human intelligence tasks can be done by humans, so who needs self-aware robots?
I agree. If we ARE going to make self-aware computers, perhaps we should firewall it and make it immobile and unarmed?
Oh, and make like no capability for network access whatsoever (neither can us humans so its fair) because a software firewall won't exactly work on a computer that can click its own "buttons", will it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I'm the kind of person that uses Linux and seems to be a very literate adult but has no idea how to do anything code-wise beyond basic stuff.(such as su -<password> yum install uqm) Except I didn't install UQM that way...I used Add/Remove Software...
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Why should we? Well, it gets really interesting if we can go a step further and take a particular mind and reimplement it in silico. Then we're looking at effective immortality.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
Why should we? Well, it gets really interesting if we can go a step further and take a particular mind and reimplement it in silico. Then we're looking at effective immortality.
The thing is, though, while the artificial copy would be the same, wouldn't the original still be mortal? It's not like consciousness would be transferred from the old brain to the new brain. So while the machine will retain all the memories, experiences, personality, etc of the person, the person him/herself will still experience death.
But that brings me into another point: What would happen if the brain was somehow brought back to life in another body after the person dies? The old energy consumption would be over, so assuming memories, personality, etc are retained, wouldn't it technically be a different entity exactly resembling the original? This is veering off topic a bit, so I'll end it there, but it's an interesting question.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Valos Cor
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 154
|
Why should we? Well, it gets really interesting if we can go a step further and take a particular mind and reimplement it in silico. Then we're looking at effective immortality.
Yes, thats right. However, its only effective immortality for the robotic "clone". Imagine waking up one day and finding out that you're a robotic clone and that you are in no way the real you and you're the only one that is absolutely convinced that you're you. Valos Cor, look that up. That is in reference to Stargate SG-1 where they had robotic clones ( in the episode "Double Jeopardy" for example)The thing is, though, while the artificial copy would be the same, wouldn't the original still be mortal? It's not like consciousness would be transferred from the old brain to the new brain. So while the machine will retain all the memories, experiences, personality, etc of the person, the person him/herself will still experience death.
I agree. If I were to be immortal, I hope I suddenly find myself to be the copy, and not the original. To see a robot with your consiousness - and essentially, is you - and die anyway isn't immortality.
In Stargate, they had a race called the Asgard who cloned themselves mindless bodies and downloaded their consiousness into the new body. I don't know how they did it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I'm the kind of person that uses Linux and seems to be a very literate adult but has no idea how to do anything code-wise beyond basic stuff.(such as su -<password> yum install uqm) Except I didn't install UQM that way...I used Add/Remove Software...
|
|
|
|
|
Alvarin
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 801
|
To live forever is one of the scariest things i can think of - just imagine the boredom after say 300 years...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention, you living forever means your projects live forever.