/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4552806]

Is it possible to create a consciousness ? If there is nothing more to a brain then a box of wires, it shouldn't be so hard right ?

[Anonymous No.4552811]

a brain's circuitry is leagues beyond what we are currently capable of. Instead of using on-off switches like computers it works in a grey area based off of energy levels, and exploits the fuck out of physics.

[Anonymous No.4552812]

>>4552811

it's basically this: http://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/

[Anonymous No.4552821]

>>4552811
But is there a possibility?

Or does it boil down to "we cannot create something better than ourselves"?

[Anonymous No.4552824]

>>4552806
That would depend on how consciousness comes about.

[Anonymous No.4552826]

>>4552821
Of course it's possible.

>"we cannot create something better than ourselves"?
We've already created computers that are better at math than we are, machines that are better at digging than we are, etc. An artificial consciousness is simply the next step.

Continuous improvement is the nature of life.

[Anonymous No.4552829]

>>4552821

The human brain is limited, but we could create a computer program that creates a computer AI designed to create a computer AI smarter than itself, set in some form of recursive function.

[Anonymous No.4552837]

If we create something like that, with similar or greater computing powers to the human mind, we run a pretty high risk of being destroyed by whatever we create. I would rather we merge tech, with no consciousness of its own, into our body. Tools are the pinnacle of our evolution, in my opinion, and by working on new and better designs, we are moving forward to the next stage of human development. Don't let the robots steal that from us :(.
tl;dr yes, it's possible. Right now? Probably not. Will it be the same as the human experience? Idk man, do I look like a goddamn philosopher?

[Random Philosopher !L6w1R37Uow No.4552839]

An entity only becomes "conscious" when it becomes aware that it requires sustenance to maintain itself.

This is the minimum requirement for consciousness.

For example, computers will only become conscious when they become aware of the fact that they need electricity to power themselves. Until then, they are just machines.

[Anonymous No.4552854]

>>4552839
That can't be hard to implement. But such AI must be interacting with the world, identifying power sources and plan its next steps for its power need.

[Anonymous No.4552863]

>>4552839
True. All machines follow a possibility sequence like a tree's branches. They don't decide or learn. If machines would have consciousness, it means they can learn, judge the situtations, change their minds and such.
I know alot of you don't want to hear it, but the only difference the separates us from them is our feelings. If we didn't feel, we would calculate every situation, and act upon completely digitized goals, as our capacity lets us. We need better houses, because we need comfort. We need friends so we don't live lonely. If we lost our feelings, we would lose our purpose to survive.

[Anonymous No.4552865]

True. All machines follow a possibility sequence like a tree's branches. They don't decide or learn. If machines would have consciousness, it means they can learn, judge the situtations, change their minds and such.
I know alot of you don't want to hear it, but the only difference the separates us from them is our feelings. If we didn't feel, we would calculate every situation, and act upon completely digitized goals, as our capacity lets us. We need better houses, because we need comfort. We need friends so we don't feel lonely. If we lost our feelings, we would lose our purpose to survive.

[Anonymous No.4552867]

Can we make a thing that can feel itchy? And desires to scratch. That's what life is all about man.

[Anonymous No.4552892]

OH SHIT! IT'S FUCKING BISMUTH, BITCH!

[Anonymous No.4552910]

Oh good, another thread where everyone on /sci/ pretends that they know what consciousness is and have solved the riddle of existence that has plagued mankind since its inception. Never change, /sci/.

[Anonymous No.4552923]

>>4552839
>computers will only become conscious when they become aware
>will only become conscious when they become aware

>o lawd

[Anonymous No.4552961]

>>4552829
we ARE a group of intelligent beings designed to self replicate, and create an intelligent that surpasses our own, I'm just curious what that conscious will think of us as it's creators, and what intelligence itself will propagate

[Anonymous No.4553076]

>>4552961
>we ARE a group of talking monkeys
... who exist to create more talking monkeys.

[Anonymous No.4553090]

>Is it possible to create a consciousness?

Assuming you mean it becomes self aware, it might be possible.

Though it depends, it could either become a "wasp" or a "human". The wasp being able to perform a number of learning techniques and tasks that are incredibly sophisticated considering its size but from what I understand it has yet to pass the mirror test. The human...of course can do all that and pass the self-awareness test.

The big question is how "big" or "complex" do we need to make those with artificial brains for it to obtain self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.4553098]

>>4552826

>better at applied math

fix'd

[Anonymous No.4553233]

>>4552837
>>>/v/

[Anonymous No.4553235]

>>4552910
Why are you attacking a strawman?

[Anonymous No.4553249]

>>4552892

>see awesome bismuth
>imagine what it would be like to have fun with motherfucking bismuth while tripping on acid
>holy shit I'm buying bismuth
>only decent priced bismuth in my area looks like this

[Anonymous No.4553277]

>>4553249
>hey lol i do drugz guiz lol omg xD am i cool yet guiz ? xDD
what a science related post

[Anonymous No.4553286]

>>4553249
Huh, I can see loads on ebay for under $50 here in Australia.

They look about half palm size and are all geometric like.

[Anonymous No.4553298]

This is semi-relevant to my interests.

Does anyone have any link to good research on artificial intelligence? All the shit I find is shit.

[Anonymous No.4553344]

>>4552867
That's fucking wisdom right there. And as usual, /sci/ ignores it in favor of its pseudointellectual bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4553490]

>>4553249
That looks like a shiny piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.4553510]

>>4552821
>Or does it boil down to "we cannot create something better than ourselves"?

That's a load of rubbish, ask any one who's ever worked on a building site. Don't buy it.

And we've already made things better than ourselves. We can't calculate a 29 digit number to the power of pi in a second; the $4 you can buy from walmart can.

[Anonymous No.4553511]

>>4553344
It's just not particularly important.
Itchyness and scratchyness are subjective, so nobody can give a practically applicable answer. In theory, as always, yes we can make a thing that does that.

[Anonymous No.4553520]

>>4553344
>>4553511
We feel our whole body, which sends us small pain or just peculiar signals. Which is the same way we feel that our heart is beating, or when we get a headache..
In case of a conscious AI, which presumably made from steel, cannot feel the metal coat, unless you place wires all over them. And even then, it can only "feel" the thermal changes or pressure signals.
So is it possible ? : Yes
Is it necessary ? : No

[Anonymous No.4553522]

>>4552867
>>4553344
Samefag

[Anonymous No.4553523]

>>4552811
Have you ever heard of computer programs? Unless you're basing your argument around how the abstraction will decrease the performance of said machine, there is no need to mention how a computer works.

[Anonymous No.4553526]

inb4 dualism

[Anonymous No.4553527]

Dualism

[Anonymous No.4553528]

>>4553520
Actually, it is necessary if we want it to feel. We can't call something conscious without feelings.

[Anonymous No.4553531]

inafter Dualism

[Anonymous No.4553542]

>>4552865
I seriously hope you're trolling.
Since backprop was invented in the early 80's, we can effectively train huge, multilayer neural networks, that, yes, do learn.

>but you're just trolling, right?

[Anonymous No.4553548]

>>4553542
Artificial neural network learning follows an algorithm. This is different from human learning.

[Anonymous No.4553549]

Can't recreate souls.

[Anonymous No.4553552]

>>4553548
OK, good, you are trolling indeed.

[Anonymous No.4553557]

>>4553552
I wasn't the guy who you originally responded too, but I can confirm that I didn't troll and I don't see any trolling in his post.

[Anonymous No.4553559]

>>4553557
*to

[Anonymous No.4553564]

>>4553557
If so, gtfo of /sci/.
>but I know you're trolling, 1/10, didn't rage, but made me reply

[Anonymous No.4553565]

>If there is nothing more to a brain then a box of wires
>implying consciousness is entirely physical

Faulty assumptions are faulty

[Anonymous No.4553566]

>>4553564
>accusing reasonable and correct posts of trolling
>not explaining your reasoning

YOU are the troll. Case closed.

[Anonymous No.4553570]

>>4553565
pray tell, what else would there be than entirely physical?

[Anonymous No.4553571]

>>4553570
Unless you can prove that it IS entirely physical, you are not allowed to make such fallacious claims. You can't prove it, because dualism is unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.4553582]

I saw some thing where researchers connected brain tissue from a rat through some wires and into a little robot thingy and now it can roll around. Not really related but it's interesting.

[Anonymous No.4553603]

>>4553582
sauce or it didn't happen