When will machines be as smart as humans?

[RandFan]

I agree that consciousness is explicable by physics.
I do not agree that our present knowledge of physics can explain it.

Agreed.

A good analogy would be human understanding of flight prior to our understanding of aerodynamics.

 

[Roboramma]

Then I'm sure you will find it a trivial task to produce the equation that produces consciousness.

Beleth, let me try to cut through things a little here. I think the Pixy's point is that while we can't undestand conciousness from first principles of physics yet, there is no reason to assume that there is some new physics at work that we're unaware of. Rather it's the complex interaction that is just too much for us to fully understand yet.
The problem isn't that we don't know the underlying forces - the problem is one of complexity, there could be a new law of computation, maybe, but not of physics, involved.

I think that's Pixy's viewpoint. If I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll point it out.

This by the way, shouldn't surprise us. We understand all the underlying forces that apply to water molecules, but we can't predict or understand surface tension from those first principles. (Unless I'm wrong, this is my layman's understanding of things). But this doesn't make anyone suggest that there is a new law of physics that applies to conglomerations of water molecules.
On the other hand, chemisty can study the laws that come about from the complex interactions of physics.

What I'm saying is that while our knowledge is incomplete, it's incomplete in how things mesh together in ever more complex systems, rather than in understanding the underlying principles.
To suggest otherwise you need more than just to show that there is a complex system whose function we don't fully understand - you need to show that it actually contradicts some known physical law.

 

[cyborg]

That is how organisms are put together- they are alive all the way.

You take out an embryo and see how well it functions outside the womb. Your analogy fails precisely because complex multicellular organisms such as humans with complex gestation cycles ARE NOT functional from the moment of their inception. There is clearly a point at which the process is finished and that is when the offspring is able to become independent of its gestation environment.
The fact that they are alive is not really a remarkable thing: remember being alive means that the cell is functioning in a live way. If it wasn't it wouldn't be functioning correctly and the process would fail to progress. It is as you say how organisms are put together.

So what?

I see this as radically different from machine assembly and I expect the difference to be reflected in the product.

Well so far there's no-one who's made a homeopathic preparation that's been able to determined the difference between it and de-ionized water.

Either there is a difference or there is not. If the history of the product made any difference to its present state then you should be able to observe it. Otherwise you cannot tell its history. You cannot tell if two identical cars were infact produced in two entirely dissimilar ways.

IF THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHY DOES THE PROCESS STILL MATTER?

True. Can you think of a single example of something you, as a conscious entity think is conscious and which is not organic? I can't. Hence my observation.

A terribly poor inductive argument.

In the same way I would determine if a living system was conscious- by studying its behaviour.

Well this is clearly not the case from the other things you've said.

Depends what you mean by "special". If you are accusing me of being " livingist", I plead guilty as charged. I think there is something very special about life at the chemical level. Not the chemicals themselves, obviously, but the process by which they interact. It's a matter of degree though, not of kind. As I have said several times, I do not believe in elan vital.

Clearly there is something special but the way you use the word also implies exclusivity, placing life on some untouchable pedastal of functional operations because of its chemistry.

Merely?

Erm yes.

'm sure I mentioned no such physical property. I agree absolutely that evolution builds critters this way because it's the only way it can be done.

I doubt it is the only way to be done, it is likely the most efficient way.

The only thing that is special (in the chemical sense you mentioned before)- is process. The thing is alive from the start, unlike a car or a computer.

Yes but what is being alive? Alive means that the chemistry is operating in an alive way. Dead things are things that once operated in an alive way but suffered an irrecoverable failiure of alive chemistry resulting in entropy gradually having its way.
A car or computer's structures being as different as they are don't require activity in order to maintain certain chemical states.

So what? I grow a car, I assemble a car...

Are they both cars or not?

It operates on itself, from the start. It modifies it's own development in response to external and internal events. It produces structures of astounding regularity and complexity, which are not only viable , but functioning at every instant of the process.

Blah, blah, blah. Yes I know what happens but you still aren't giving me any reasons why I should think the process by which the product is produced is the most important thing. All you're doing is describing the mechanics by which life operates.

The process does not stop at birth. It stops at death.

My car rusts.

The fact that something may change during its lifecycle doesn't make it special: quite the opposite infact since it's pretty hard to avoid being changed. We are talking about function here though.

Somewhere along the line, this thing becomes self aware. Somewhere along the line, it may cease to be.

You seem to think a baby could be (in principle) assembled dead, from off the peg parts and kick started at the moment of birth and that a normal human intelligence would result a la Frankenstein.

Assembled dead? No, assembled from chemicals. Chemicals don't have the honour of being called dead until they are first alive.

I think that's very , very improbable.

I don't care if you think it in your gut: give me a damn reason! All I can see is someone gawping about how wonderful the construction of life is. Well yeah it's an impressive series of chemical reactions BUT IT'S STILL JUST CHEMISTRY. Nothing has fundamentally changed there.

"Impossible"? I don't know. I'm pretty sure we can't do it with computer technology. I think nanotech might be a way, but let's face it - most of what we "know " of that is fiction.

I don't think you know about computer technology or nanotechnology.

Can you give me a good reason why it can't be done with computer technology? Can you give me a good reason why you think nanotechnology could do it? And then could you give me a good reason why the computer couldn't replicate what the nanontechnology is doing?

I can't think of existing technology which can produce life, far less conscious life. Can you?

Well in that case it wasn't possible to travel faster than the speed of sound a hundred years ago but supersonic flight then changed the laws of physics.

I want you to give me a reason why it's absolutely not possible, not just point out the fscking obvious point that it's not possible today.

Yes. For the reason given above. For a fully formed brain to be conscious , an earlier part of the continuous process has to operate at the correct time. You can't just play a mind tape into a piece of finished machinery, any more than you can blow life into it.

You assert that a lot but you do not back it up.

Why can't I play the mind tape onto the finished machinery? Do I care how my conciousness was made or do I only care that I've got my machine that has it?

If who did? And if so, what? I don't get your meaning here.

I'm asking you how you prove your conciousness to something that doesn't meet your biological criterion.

The bus arriving in London from Glasgow has no passengers from Cardiff. It did not go through Cardiff en route. Why is this so hard to see?

Erm, yes. Now can you address my question rather than attempting woefully inadaquate analogies?

Yes. The process is chemical and is generally called "life". Nothing not alive displays consciousness- even when examined by other conscious entities. The evidence for this is all over the place.

Can you just drop this stupid fallicious inductive argument? I've heard it. Yes well done, there are lifeforms that display conciousness. You've not seen anything else that displays conciousness. By the magic of induction you conclude it is impossible. Ugh.

Sorry- I don't understand what you mean here by "reciprocal".

It is a definition that is too abstract to be pinned down. Since it is concious beings telling each other they are concious that would make it reciprocally defined.

I have seen nothing resembling it in non living systems.

Is that some sort of inductive argument again? Yes it is. *sigh*

Intelligent behaviour is a far simpler concept. I have no doubt at all that intelligent behaviour can be emulated by machinery.

I don't think you understand what emulation is.

Machines with intelligent behaviour could be emulating the intelligent behaviour of something else: they may well not. They are nonetheless with intelligent behaviour in both cases.

I do doubt such machinery will ever be conscious, though radically different machinery may be some day.

Well yes, as you said earlier unless some machine was constructed in someway that happened to satisfy your concept of what something must be in order to be concious you would call it a p-zombie.

Reciprocal defintion much?

I just think if that's what we are after, computers are not the way to go.

Can you give me a good reason why? The best you've tried so far is that conciousness is somehow only magically able to appear if a certain process is applied to producing the conciously functioning machine.

 

[Belz...]

Woah, there. That's a very nasty way to quote and answer an e-mail, Sam. Lots of editing for me.

Arms lift, push and pull. Brains not only control arms, they do a great deal more. I think there is a big difference. And I do not believe we can reproduce a human arm, except by growing one.

Well, I suppose if you redefine the word so that only an actual, grown duplicate can "reproduce" the arm, then you win every time, Sam.

That's verging on tautology. Obviously if we can reproduce whatever causes x we can produce x. That's precisely my point- we don't know what produces consciousness and by assuming it's purely neural architecture we run the risk of missing all the developmental process which may be critical.

I still don't see WHY you think the development process is so critical. you still haven't explained that one and I've never heard that line of reasoning before.

Yes, but I have yet to see something which displays controlled flight and is neither alive nor designed by a biological intelligence. Can you think of one?

That's stupid. Obviously you've set the bar so high that nothing could reach it. The point is, controlled flight is possible and it's been reproduced, and improved upon. The human arm can and has been reproduced, and it's no stretch of the imagination to think we can improve upon the original "design".

Really? What makes you think this is likely? You may be right, but I doubt you can prove it . You are arguing your bias, like me. (Which is fine). I never said all living things are conscious. I said all conscious things are living. That may be coincidence. I'm sceptical.

That's not skepticism. It's not even particularily smart. Obviously, every conscious thing is biological because, before we got to building machines, nothing else exhibited that kind of complexity. It's the same thing I said about controlled flight. Of course, you tossed that example aside by ignoring the point entirely.

I'm not sure what you mean by "construct". If we grow a human clone as we grew Dolly the sheep , I'd expect him to be mentally very like the person the original cell came from, once we correct for nurture, education, embryonic chemistry etc. I don't understand your reference to a neural net. If you mean literally " construct" then I have no idea what we would get, or where we would start, and I don't think anyone else has either.

I said if we make a clone AND find a way to replicate the original's neural and synaptic configuration into it, it should have a similar mind, even if it took about 5 minutes to grow the clone.

I think your reasoning here is circular: If mind is an electric field and two fields are the same, then there are two minds. But is mind an electric field? Could be. If human minds are electric fields generated by brains and the structure of brains is a result of embryonic development, will different development produce the same field? It might. It might not. I don't think we know. I suspect it would not.

[/QUOTE]

I don't know what causes consciousness. The electric field example was just that, an example to make my point.

 

[Belz...]

Is your argument that doing so would be impossible? I won't say it is, but if that's what you're saying I think you are arguing at cross purposes with Belz. He is saying if we could build something that was physically identical to a human mind in all ways that matter for cognition, then it would be concious.

You are saying that the process of building that mind is important, but isn't it only important in how it effects the outcome?

Yes. If we could replicate, molecule for molecule, a human, in some form of "transporter", then how could the duplicate NOT have a mind ?

 

[Soapy Sam]

You take out an embryo and see how well it functions outside the womb. It dies. And you think you can restart it?

Your analogy fails precisely because complex multicellular organisms such as humans with complex gestation cycles ARE NOT functional from the moment of their inception.
Sorry, I'm confused- what analogy? I have made no analogy. I have said that I suspect conscuiousness is a process which starts during embryonic development. Anyone who ever saw a baby knows it is far from complete at birth. Human brain growth rates in infants are similar to those in late stage embryos, because babies are premature. All babies.
There is clearly a point at which the process is finished and that is when the offspring is able to become independent of its gestation environment.
So you think an embryo separated from it's mother will die , but a baby will not? Embryonic development continues for months and growth for another 20 years.
The fact that they are alive is not really a remarkable thing: remember being alive means that the cell is functioning in a live way.
Ah well, that's the mystery of life explained.

If it wasn't it wouldn't be functioning correctly and the process would fail to progress. It is as you say how organisms are put together.


Well so far there's no-one who's made a homeopathic preparation that's been able to determined the difference between it and de-ionized water.

You've lost me. Did I mention homoeopathy?

Either there is a difference or there is not. If the history of the product made any difference to its present state then you should be able to observe it. Otherwise you cannot tell its history. You cannot tell if two identical cars were infact produced in two entirely dissimilar ways.

I disagree, because I question the premise. Two cars made in diferent ways will not be identical, their nature will reflect their history.

IF THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WHY DOES THE PROCESS STILL MATTER?
That's the hinge of the argument. You assume there is no difference, I think there is.


A terribly poor inductive argument.
I think it's a fine inductive argument. You have an objection to inductive reasoning?



Well this is clearly not the case from the other things you've said.
I've been known to contradict myself.



Clearly there is something special but the way you use the word also implies exclusivity, placing life on some untouchable pedastal of functional operations because of its chemistry. Nope. That's the way you read the word. Like I say, we all have our bias. ALL I have said is that life is a hellishly complex type of chemistry and consciousness , so far as I can see is an elaboration of that. I base that on observation of the world. As I said, I await a counterexample.

I doubt it is the only way to be done, it is likely the most efficient way.
Depends how you define efficient. Actually I'd say not. We have only vague ideas how life began, but once begun, I think it's reasonable to suppose there were chemical pathways that happened to be first for some things. Once started, life was (and is) stuck with them. There may be better ways, but it's too late to change. A bit like Betamax and the other thing.

Yes but what is being alive? Alive means that the chemistry is operating in an alive way. Yeeees...
Dead things are things that once operated in an alive way but suffered an irrecoverable failiure of alive chemistry resulting in entropy gradually having its way. Or were never alive in the first place? You seem to make a distinction between chemicals which are dead and chemicals which have never been alive (and are not now alive). If you think only architecture matters, can I ask why you make that distinction?
A car or computer's structures being as different as they are don't require activity in order to maintain certain chemical states. Ah- is this the analogy you meant? Don't push it too far, I was just trying to point out how much more difficult it would be to build a production line that achieved some sort of " irreducible complexity" all the way through assembly. I don't think it could be done at all.

So what? I grow a car, I assemble a car...

Are they both cars or not? Yes, but they are radically different, because one is already operating - not just at the factory gate, but at every point of the production line. Now we both know that's nonsensical. Engineers cannot do that. Life does. I think that difference matters. You do not. So be it.



Blah, blah, blah. Yes I know what happens but you still aren't giving me any reasons why I should think the process by which the product is produced is the most important thing. All you're doing is describing the mechanics by which life operates. Yes, because that's all there is. I'm not offering you a spirit, a soul or a magic essence. The process is all there is. Hold onto that notion.



My car rusts. So does mine.

The fact that something may change during its lifecycle doesn't make it special: Well, if something changes, doesn't that make it different? (Sorry, I'm being facetious now.)



Assembled dead? No, assembled from chemicals. Chemicals don't have the honour of being called dead until they are first alive. Why not? According to the architecture viewpoint, what difference is there? The only difference is historical.


I don't care if you think it in your gut: give me a damn reason! All I can see is someone gawping about how wonderful the construction of life is. Well yeah it's an impressive series of chemical reactions BUT IT'S STILL JUST CHEMISTRY. Nothing has fundamentally changed there.
I agree 100%. A polythene bag is chemicals. A man is chemicals. There are differences. An ape and a man are both alive. There are differences. Humans are conscious. I believe (perhaps you don't) that apes are conscious. Poly bags are not. I see no evidence computers are either. Or software- though that's a better argument from the architecture POV I think.


I don't think you know about computer technology or nanotechnology.
Not a lot. I know people who do though- and they are not so optimistic about AI as you appear to be. Or so hopeful as they were. Still, fingers crossed. In any case, computer tech is irrelevant to the argument. If the architecture argument is right, you should be able to produce consciousness using rubber bands and clothes pegs.

Can you give me a good reason why it can't be done with computer technology? I have. You don't believe me.
Can you give me a good reason why you think nanotechnology could do it?
No. The self assembly aspect of NT seems similar to the way nature does it that's all. But as I said, most of what we hear of NT is wildly speculative.
And then could you give me a good reason why the computer couldn't replicate what the nanontechnology is doing?



Well in that case it wasn't possible to travel faster than the speed of sound a hundred years ago but supersonic flight then changed the laws of physics. Really? I hadn't heard that.

I want you to give me a reason why it's absolutely not possible, not just point out the fscking obvious point that it's not possible today.
Sorry, can't do that, any more than you can prove its is. The obvious is the obvious, because it's fact. Induction is a good way to think until proven wrong. I'm sorry to keep singing the same old song, but it's the only one I know. All conscious things are alive and undergo complex development. Could be consciousness is added right at the end by either a fairy or some sort of BIOS, which seems to be what you are implying. I think it happens earlier as part of the developmental process. That's it. We can knock this one over the net all night, but that's really all there is to it. I don't buy the identical architecture = identical function argument, because I do not believe the architecture will ever be identical.

You assert that a lot but you do not back it up. You are right. Until we see non organic consciousness, I'm not sure how I can be proved wrong. Equally, I freely admit I'm expressing an opinion- I can't be preved right. I do feel nature supports my view- but we're back to induction again. The facts.

Why can't I play the mind tape onto the finished machinery? Do I care how my conciousness was made or do I only care that I've got my machine that has it? Because the machinery is not finished until it dies, by which time it is too late. When alive, at any time in it's life, it already has a chemical program running. To "play your tape", you have to stop that program. You have to kill it.

I'm asking you how you prove your conciousness to something that doesn't meet your biological criterion. I don't have to, because no such thing exists. When you have one, wheel it on and we'll try. (Actually I suspect true AI may simply not recognise organic intelligence at all- they may be so alien neither will recognise the other).



Erm, yes. Now can you address my question rather than attempting woefully inadaquate analogies? Sorry. I have tried hard to answer your question. I'm failing to get across. I thought something simpler might help.



Can you just drop this stupid fallicious inductive argument? I've heard it. Yes well done, there are lifeforms that display conciousness.
Well, yes, if you like. We can drop inductive reasoning. I appreciate you have heard the argument, but I do not think you understand it. The issue is not that there are lifeforms which display consciousness, but that there are no conscious entities which are not lifeforms.
You've not seen anything else that displays conciousness. By the magic of induction you conclude it is impossible. Ugh. Not so. I have no idea if it is possible for a machine to display consciousness. Nor have you. You believe it is possible, I think it is unlikely using computers. That's our difference.



It is a definition that is too abstract to be pinned down. Since it is concious beings telling each other they are concious that would make it reciprocally defined. I see. Is it possible for two beings to independently define each other as conscious while in fact not being conscious? If so, who decides they are not? If two entities can define each other's consciousness, then presumably there is no reason why a single entity cannot do it. Back to Descartes, I guess.



Is that some sort of inductive argument again? Yes it is. *sigh* Yup. I have loads of them. Have I told you about the sun coming up tomorrow?



I don't think you understand what emulation is. Possibly. As I understand the difference, a simulation reproduces output and an emulation reproduces (to an agreed extent) the actual operational process, insofar as different hardware permits. I'm no computer person. One danger in debates like this is subtle differences in meaning of words like this which have both general and specialist meanings.

Machines with intelligent behaviour could be emulating the intelligent behaviour of something else: they may well not. They are nonetheless with intelligent behaviour in both cases. On Intelligent behaviour, think you are on safer ground, especially if by IB is meant "Behaviour which appears purposeful or comples, similar to that shown by people". (Or something like that). A Watt governor shows IB by that definition and so does a chess playing program etc. We could argue about whether it's " really intelligent", but I think that would be perverse.



Well yes, as you said earlier unless some machine was constructed in someway that happened to satisfy your concept of what something must be in order to be concious you would call it a p-zombie. Well, how would you recognise something as conscious? I would study its behaviour and make a decision based on my (inductive) experience, which you reject.

You have another method?


Can you give me a good reason why? The best you've tried so far is that conciousness is somehow only magically able to appear if a certain process is applied to producing the conciously functioning machine.

No magic. To me, it is you who propose magic. I think I simply see an ongoing process. I can't say it more simply. If you don't see that, I give up. There is no magic, just life and history.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Woah, there. That's a very nasty way to quote and answer an e-mail, Sam. Lots of editing for me. Sorry. Never could figure that quote button out .

Well, I suppose if you redefine the word so that only an actual, grown duplicate can "reproduce" the arm, then you win every time, Sam.
I think you misunderstand me.The arm does not reproduce an arm. I said technology can't reproduce an arm. Below you say it can and has. I would appreciate a citation for that .
I still don't see WHY you think the development process is so critical. you still haven't explained that one and I've never heard that line of reasoning before.
No. It's not one AI people discuss much. Let's be honest- embryology is a vast field in which even the experts are still profoundly lost. I can't explain it. Nobody can; not because it's magic , but because it's new territory. We'll get there, but not this year. It's precisely the lack of understanding that worries me. Any one, or one hundred of the steps involved could be the difference between a chimpanzee level intellect and a human one. (There is a difference. It must be genetic. It must be expressed before birth. It's in there somewhere. Or they are. And the logic extends all the way down- somewhere in there is the difference between a human and a worm. )
My background is geology, not medicine or computers. I see an area of immense complexity involved in the production of every living being and I suspect life and consciousness are tied together intimately during that process. I cannot remotely prove this. It is an opinion. I have never met a computer engineer who even considered it and I find your comment to that effect significant. I think that is potentially a serious blind spot. If I can niggle people like you into mentioning the idea to people like that, I think it's worth doing. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.



Obviously you've set the bar so high that nothing could reach it. The point is, controlled flight is possible and it's been reproduced, and improved upon. The human arm can and has been reproduced,
Evidence? I do not believe that.
and it's no stretch of the imagination to think we can improve upon the original "design".
In an evolutionary context, "improve" is a dangerous word.



That's not skepticism. It's not even particularily smart. Obviously, every conscious thing is biological because, before we got to building machines, nothing else exhibited that kind of complexity. Silicates are extremely complex, yet show no sign of intelligence. Global chemical systems are complex, but unintelligent. Weather systems, ditto. Complexity is not enough.
It's the same thing I said about controlled flight. Of course, you tossed that example aside by ignoring the point entirely.
It may not be smart, but it's true. All intelligence is biological, including the intelligence that developed controlled flight- Insects, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals (including humans) in that order. If there are von Neuman machines out there, they are scarce. (Unless you count organic ones).
I did not toss the example aside. I pointed out that it's a very weak example. You can do controlled flight with canvas and string. In theory, the extreme version of your argument holds that we can build brains with canvas and string. I don't suppose you would suggest that, but you would suggest you can do it with electronics. I have my doubts, that's all.


I said if we make a clone AND find a way to replicate the original's neural and synaptic configuration into it, it should have a similar mind, even if it took about 5 minutes to grow the clone.
Well- now who is setting the bar high? If wishes were horses, poor men might ride. If you had a matter transmitter which duplicated a living being , I think you would be right. Short of that, I have doubts. But seriously- do you think any probable technology (extrapolated from today) will be able to replicate the original's neural and synaptic configuration?

I don't know what causes consciousness. The electric field example was just that, an example to make my point.[/quote]

Fair enough. I don't know either. Nor does anyone else, yet.

 

[Roboramma]

Soapy Sam, after reading your last few responses, let me ask you another question.

This is my take on what you're saying, and I want to know if I'm right. Let's say we're going to build a seventy story building. From one perspective, the way we build it, the machinery we use to build it, etc. (the process) doesn't matter. This is what the others have been trying to say. The final product is what matters. That it look like what the blueprints outline.

But, there are only so many ways to get from those blueprints to that final product. For instance you have to start from the ground up. You can't build the seventieth floor first - gravity precludes that. You need to use certain materials rather than others - because they need to have certain properties - strength and mass in a certain range.
There might be some imaginable way of building it from the top down - maybe we've got some giant flying device that can hover over the build site and hold up the higher floors while we build from there - but not only can we not do that now, we've never seen it done and don't know if it would be possible. There's a big difference between imagining that something could work and actually putting it into practice.

On the other hand we've built many buildings from the ground up, and this works. In theory other methods may be possible, but until we can actually show that they are, you won't put any stock in the idea that they necessarily are.

In other words, while it is the final outcome that matters, the process is what gets us there, and it may be impossible to get to the final outcome (a seventy story building, or conciousness) by means other than the ones we know. Practically impossible is still impossible.

If that's your possition, I can get my head around it. If you are saying, no, even if the outcomes were the same (even if two things were physically identical), they would somehow be different because of the process that went into their development, then I can't agree. It's not unlike the homeopath's claim that even though it's just water, the process of producing it left some intangible difference.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'll repeat that I'm talking about consciousness. Intelligence I see as something simpler. We judge intelligence by behaviour and I have no quibble with present day computers displaying intelligent behaviour. Searle's Chinese room displays intelligent behaviour, but the only thing in the room which is conscious is the man.

Are you possibly confusing consciousness and culture? There are the famous 'wolf child' studies, where human beings have been raised outside of a cultural environment. IIRC, they were certainly self aware, but not to any great extent. It is culture that then takes the raw material to create a 'human'.

 

[Roboramma]

Are you possibly confusing consciousness and culture?

I don't see how. You're suggesting that consciousness arises from cultural influence rather than embryological development.
Even if so, where's the confusion between consciousness are culture? If anything it would be between development and culture.
Basically the old nature vs. nurture debate. But I don't see any reason to bring that in to things here.

Whatever leads to the development of conciousness, be it nature or nurture, certainly follows a process that begins with conception and ends with a concious human being. Soapy Sam is only suggesting that this process is necessary to conciousness, and if we were ever to develop a non-biological conciousness it would have to go through a similar development. Whatever that development actually entails.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry. Never could figure that quote button out .

Please do so. This is the last time I have to filter your posts to quote you.

I think you misunderstand me.The arm does not reproduce an arm. I said technology can't reproduce an arm. Below you say it can and has. I would appreciate a citation for that .

Like I said. You set the bar too high for "reproduce". Nothing could possibly satisfy you.

Let's be honest- embryology is a vast field in which even the experts are still profoundly lost. I can't explain it. Nobody can; not because it's magic , but because it's new territory. We'll get there, but not this year. It's precisely the lack of understanding that worries me. Any one, or one hundred of the steps involved could be the difference between a chimpanzee level intellect and a human one.

Still not answering the question. What makes you THINK that the PROCESS has anything to do with the outcome ? Why would a car built by hand work any differently than one assembled in a line ?

I suspect life and consciousness are tied together intimately during that process. I cannot remotely prove this. It is an opinion.

An opinion based solely on faith, if I understand correctly ?

and it's no stretch of the imagination to think we can improve upon the original "design".

In an evolutionary context, "improve" is a dangerous word.

Who cares ? We're doing the evolving, so we can improve it if we wish. Sheesh, now you're playing semantics.

Silicates are extremely complex, yet show no sign of intelligence. Global chemical systems are complex, but unintelligent. Weather systems, ditto. Complexity is not enough.

Yes, and your sundae is also very complex, but that's not the kind of complexity we're talking about, is it ?

It may not be smart, but it's true. All intelligence is biological, including the intelligence that developed controlled flight- Insects, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals (including humans) in that order.

Are we back to God, now ? Or did I misunderstand ?

Of course, that wasn't my point. But you've already rigged the game. Obviously, since everything humans have ever done has been done "by a biological intelligence", you see yourself as justified to say that nothing can be intelligent except through biology. In fact, even if we DID make smart, self-aware computers, you'd still be justified in saying that because you've already rigged the definition.

I did not toss the example aside. I pointed out that it's a very weak example. You can do controlled flight with canvas and string. In theory, the extreme version of your argument holds that we can build brains with canvas and string. I don't suppose you would suggest that, but you would suggest you can do it with electronics. I have my doubts, that's all.

This is getting ridiculous. Do you not understand analogy ?

Well- now who is setting the bar high? If wishes were horses, poor men might ride. If you had a matter transmitter which duplicated a living being , I think you would be right.

So you agree that the process is irrelevant, then ?

 

[cyborg]

I don't buy the identical architecture = identical function argument, because I do not believe the architecture will ever be identical.

I give up. Whilst you continue to redefine the argument talking to you is a waste of time I don't have.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Roboramma - Thanks for trying. You have part of my argument, but I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you too.

First, I question the possibility that two things can be totally identical.
Two things can be similar within agreed tolerances.That's as good as we can do.
However, even if we accept (for purpose of the argument) that tolerable physical similarity would do, your skyscraper metaphor still fails to meet the requirement that the construction (car, building, whatever) must be functional at every stage of it's creation. A brick is not a building. A 10 minute old foetus however is a living being. This is the difference I keep coming back to and which appears to be very hard for Belz or Cyborg to accept as significant. The roots of whatever material process generates consciousness lie in the development of a life form. We agree they are chemical, we agree there is no sprit or sleight of hand. We seem to disagree that the actual process of life is part of the package.
I find this puzzling- a wilfull denial of evidence.

I stand accused of holding a faith based opinion - (That all the conscious entities I know of are also living entities).
I stand accused of inductive reasoning- (That as all conscious entities are alive, life is probably implicated in consciousness)
I stand accused of not using the "Quote" button.

I plead guilty to all three.
As It seems we are misunderstanding and annoying one another, perhaps we had best let it drop. Interesting discussion.

 

[Belz...]

A brick is not a building. A 10 minute old foetus however is a living being. This is the difference I keep coming back to and which appears to be very hard for Belz or Cyborg to accept as significant.

It makes no difference. You're stuck with the assumption that, somehow, the building blocks that make up a living beign are different from those making up a non-living thing. That's NOT the case. They're all the same molecules.

Aside from that, there is NO, I repeat: NO evidence whatsoever to presume that the PROCESS has anything to do with the advent of consciousness... or didn't you get that automobile analogy I used ?