What if ! Sentience is created

[HotAssassin]

Religion apart, the human brain is just a bunch of electronic 'circuits' communicating with each other. The number of interactions has been measured. Specialists forecast that by 2025 we will have a computer with the processing power compared to the human brain. So, theoretically, then we could simulate ALL of its functions and behaviors.

 

But . . . to simulate something we must, first, understand it. And, then, put A LOT of money into the development of the simulation. I don't see this happening any time soon.

 

Using HotAssassin's analogy: Yes !!. We will have that car. What we will not have is someone to drive it.

 

 

I think that you have inadvertently hit the proverbial nail on the head. Your use of my analogy, which was a poor analogy at best, would have been best served by you saying: We could have that car. What we will not have is someone who will pay to have it built.

 

What you did say is more fulfilling of my perspective. We may well have ability to build a computer that can equal the processing power of the human brain at some point. But, having that still will not make that machine capable of self will.

 

 

Watch the video the question will follow.

 

If we (the human species) are able to create , build , make a construct of the level of sentience as presented in the video , basically one that is just as self aware as we are in all respects . Do we as humans have the right to claim that construct as property . If not then what happens to the capitalist notions of property and the right to benefit by the fruits of your own labor.

 

If such a "construct" could be construed as "sentient" (assuming we can define exactly what sentience is) then no, we do not have the right to claim such an object as "property".

 

This whole argument reminds me of Data's Trial which I agreed with at the time and my opinions havn't changed. To assume that a biological brain is somehow special and can never be understood or replicated or in some way set upon a pedestal above all others is basically magical thinking and very close to religious dogma.

 

 

I assert that what you call "religious dogma" is exactly the element of being human which cannot be understood nor replicated. It saddens me that so many fail to see the uniqueness of humanity amongst the world of living entities. To religate us to merely an advanced animal status is precisely the kind of constraint that would hold us back from ever achieving such a goal as creating a self-willed construct capable of complex emotions of its own.

 

Programming a construct to be self willed is an oxymoron, a juxtaposition of two things that are inherently opposed. Or, more correctly, a paradox. To entertain the thought of such things is akin to pulling together the ingredients of the so called "primordial ooze", applying some type of power, and hoping to see new life spring up from it. Now, we have entered the realm of the Gods. For only the Gods can do that which is impossible. The Miraculous... Or, if you will, to be the witness to a so called "Quirk of Fate" which has only happened once in 4.54 billion years.

 

Believe what you will... dream... hope... but on your deathbed remember my words from here. You will NEVER see a truly self-willed machine in all the days of your life.

[edgeburner]

I would not totally discount religion....Just look at history. How could it survive the centuries (with billions of beleivers) if it was based on false dieties?

We have siliced and diced genes, studied the human brain, analized social tendancies, ect. yet....we can't even sniff the absolute truth as far as sentinience 'cause'.

All we can do so far is attempt to replicate human behavior via computer modelling, bioligics, and other so far feeble attemtpts to understand.

It seems to me almost like the climate debate....the more we think we know, the more we find out we actually don't know. All a part of the learing process, I guess.

Why do we have the ability to form logic in our brains, yet animals cannot? Surley it is not brain mass?

A friend of mine said it all had to do with chemical reaction in the human body/brain. Of course he could not elaborate...seems no one can.

"being human" We know nothing else.

Edited March 30, 2015 by edgeburner

[soupdragon1234]

You will NEVER see a truly self-willed machine in all the days of your life.

 

I never said I would. That doesn't remove the possibility, however remote, that such a thing is possible in the future. And gods will have very little to do with it.

 

Mysticism, or magic, or religion, call it what you like, is simply a way to try and explain away what cannot yet be comprehended as some kind of supernatural force, when it is simply a lack of knowledge. A knowledge that will, in time, be acquired by the laws of reason and logic.

 

edit: and I'm sorry I comtributed to your general disappointment in humanity Drake. I'm more annoyed with myself than anything else honestly I really should know better. I guess I should stay out of debates its really not my scene. I'm chalking it down to lack of sleep at this point. I sure wish I had something of your eloquence, and your grey matter.

Edited March 31, 2015 by soupdragon1234

[edgeburner]

 

what cannot yet be comprehended

You got that part right.

 

 

 

when it is simply a lack of knowledge. A knowledge that will, in time, be acquired by the laws of reason and logic.

 

w

You mean a lack of knowldege? How can a lack of knowledge (statement) become knowledge.? If it is based on reason and logic, why are we still in the dark? Or, is our cuerrent understanding on reason and logic utterly flawed?

 

Is y our believing that we will suddenly (after thousands of years) discover the key to human thought and existence more nonsencical than believing in a God?

 

Going by your statment....You have a lack of knowledge, the faithfull have hundreds/thousands of years of faith....

 

to each his own.

 

Edited March 31, 2015 by edgeburner

[edgeburner]

Oh, pardon my persistence....But, it seems that you have "faith" that we will someday put all of the X's and O's together and finally explain (scientifically) the key to our minds, to our existance....

Too me, that is just another form of Faith.

Edited March 31, 2015 by edgeburner

[DrakeTheDragon]

This is getting too religious for me now. Of course I have my own beliefs, and of course I also have faith... but what I believe in is nobody's concern and will not be brought up in public discussions. Only one thing, I will not accept religious dogmas as proof for something's impossibility.

 

Only concentrating on this supposedly huge difference between humans and animals in my eyes is just pure arrogance on an existential scale.

We don't know why we are how we are today, only that we once were just like they are now, and all it took us to get from them to us was time.

There's a lot of scientifically proven evidence that a lot of animals very well possess features or abilities some think only humans possess or are capable of, most of the things mentioned inside here as an exclusively-human thing so far very well among them as well already.

 

Claiming that non-human things will never gain these abilities, while we ourselves still don't know how we got them to begin with, in my eyes is arrogance and ignorance, nothing else.

Of course we can't 'make' a machine sentient. We don't know how, for one, and for two, we weren't 'made' sentient ourselves either. We 'became' so.

 

What if sentience can't be 'created'? What if something must 'develop' itself so long until it 'becomes' sentient one day, just like we did?

Who are we to say something else than us never can become sentient, if we still don't know how we became sentient ourselves? This doesn't even work in this oh-so-human thing called logic thinking in here.

 

And if becoming sentient really happens on its own at some point, what else will it take than having the exact same foundation there was when it happened the last time?

Do we really know enough about it to ever even dare to make as bold a claim as to say "no, it never will"? "Animals are animals, they never will be more." How arrogant is that? Did we 'make' them? Do we 'know'?

 

 

My apologies, if I offended anybody, but this is aimed at certain parts of mankind in general. I have a habit of being disappointed with my own species on a daily basis, as they just give me reason to on a daily basis. Always have and always will. And sometimes it gets to me as much as to cause a rant aimed at them in response such as this one. Nothing personal.

 

So... now, as this all isn't even the topic of this debate to begin with... how did this topic derail again from a debate about what we should do "if" it were the case to a fundamental discussion of why it's impossible to ever "be" the case? What kind of "what if" discussion is this? And how did the topic "religion", that is not to be brought up in the debate section, all of a sudden end up being brought up inside here again anyways this time?

 

Will it just continue down that way and inevitably end up locked, or will it indeed return back to topic at one point and go on the way it was intended to?

I don't know if I have enough 'faith' to 'believe' in the latter, while we're at it... but I'm always open for being proven wrong, you know?

 

I for one have to leave now. Off to bed first, the rest we will see then.

[QQuix]

I also think Religion vs. Sentience should not be discussed. There is no point, because if Sentience is God-given, we will have sentient machines only if God wishes. And if He wishes it, who are we to say that those machines do not have the same rights as humans?

 

Now . . looking at the other scenario, the one Drake just mentioned, that all it takes is evolution and time, l believe we will have sentient machines (but not that soon)

 

We will have the processing power, because there is money in developing faster computers (ask Google). If we do have a computer comparable to the human brain by 2030, one or two decades after that we will have it small enough to fit in an android. So, no problem there.

 

The software is something else altogether. We will have smarter and smarter machines because there will be money invested on them. There will be money to mass production of the little mobile land rovers Drake mentioned earlier. There will be money to develop robot soldiers. There will be money to develop all those smart machines we see in sci-fi movies and books.

 

But I don't see the industry interested in developing sentience. I suppose the specs will be exactly the opposite. The industry will need smart, but focused, machines. (may I say dumb smart-machines?) We don't want an elevator to get bored and decide to scare the passengers, do we?

 

So, since there will be no real money on it, developing of Sentience will be restricted to Universities and/or some free software group and/or a couple of researchers in a big company.

 

I think the most likely scenario to get there will happen when programs get the capability of writing new programs on demand. This way, given time, sooner or later, sentience will happen. It wont take 2 million years as we needed, but it will not happen overnight ether. My guess is that it will take a few decades, but, as already said, none of us will see it (but our children may).

 

 

And will that sentient machine have the same rights as a human being?

 

I think that it will depend very much on the overall scenario at the time.

 

If, by that time, we have met other sentient aliens and they are friendly, a sentient machine will be just one more (as is Data in that clip)

If, by that time, we have met other sentient aliens and they are not friendly, a sentient machine will have a hard time among us.

If, by that time, we have not met other sentient aliens, it is anybody guess. Mine is that IT will not get those rights, either because of our collective drive for self preservation, or because of religious resistance, or because or fear of change, or because . . .

 

My personal opinion is that it should (the rights should be given to them)

 

(and an English question: if the rights are given, should we call them IT? or He/She? Will they have gender?)

 

 

[HeyYou]

I also think Religion vs. Sentience should not be discussed. There is no point, because if Sentience is God-given, we will have sentient machines only if God wishes. And if He wishes it, who are we to say that those machines do not have the same rights as humans?

 

Now . . looking at the other scenario, the one Drake just mentioned, that all it takes is evolution and time, l believe we will have sentient machines (but not that soon)

 

We will have the processing power, because there is money in developing faster computers (ask Google). If we do have a computer comparable to the human brain by 2030, one or two decades after that we will have it small enough to fit in an android. So, no problem there.

 

The software is something else altogether. We will have smarter and smarter machines because there will be money invested on them. There will be money to mass production of the little mobile land rovers Drake mentioned earlier. There will be money to develop robot soldiers. There will be money to develop all those smart machines we see in sci-fi movies and books.

 

But I don't see the industry interested in developing sentience. I suppose the specs will be exactly the opposite. The industry will need smart, but focused, machines. (may I say dumb smart-machines?) We don't want an elevator to get bored and decide to scare the passengers, do we?

 

So, since there will be no real money on it, developing of Sentience will be restricted to Universities and/or some free software group and/or a couple of researchers in a big company.

 

I think the most likely scenario to get there will happen when programs get the capability of writing new programs on demand. This way, given time, sooner or later, sentience will happen. It wont take 2 million years as we needed, but it will not happen overnight ether. My guess is that it will take a few decades, but, as already said, none of us will see it (but our children may).

 

 

And will that sentient machine have the same rights as a human being?

 

I think that it will depend very much on the overall scenario at the time.

 

If, by that time, we have met other sentient aliens and they are friendly, a sentient machine will be just one more (as is Data in that clip)

If, by that time, we have met other sentient aliens and they are not friendly, a sentient machine will have a hard time among us.

If, by that time, we have not met other sentient aliens, it is anybody guess. Mine is that IT will not get those rights, either because of our collective drive for self preservation, or because of religious resistance, or because or fear of change, or because . . .

 

My personal opinion is that it should (the rights should be given to them)

 

(and an English question: if the rights are given, should we call them IT? or He/She? Will they have gender?)

 

 

Actually, I think that would be a hoot. (so long as I wasn't in the elevator..... and no one got hurt. :) )

 

Saying something will never happen is pretty arrogant. Folks said man would never fly. Folks said we would never go into space. Folks said the automobile would never be popular. Folks said the internet was a passing fad....... Folks that say something will never happen, are proven to be incorrect fairly frequently.

 

Now, will man develop a sentient machine ON PURPOSE? Maybe not..... but, you stuff enough processing power into a machine, with adaptive software, and we may just get a surprise. :)

[HotAssassin]

This is getting too religious for me now. Of course I have my own beliefs, and of course I also have faith... but what I believe in is nobody's concern and will not be brought up in public discussions. Only one thing, I will not accept religious dogmas as proof for something's impossibility.

 

Only concentrating on this supposedly huge difference between humans and animals in my eyes is just pure arrogance on an existential scale.

We don't know why we are how we are today, only that we once were just like they are now, and all it took us to get from them to us was time.

There's a lot of scientifically proven evidence that a lot of animals very well possess features or abilities some think only humans possess or are capable of, most of the things mentioned inside here as an exclusively-human thing so far very well among them as well already.

 

Claiming that non-human things will never gain these abilities, while we ourselves still don't know how we got them to begin with, in my eyes is arrogance and ignorance, nothing else.

Of course we can't 'make' a machine sentient. We don't know how, for one, and for two, we weren't 'made' sentient ourselves either. We 'became' so.

 

What if sentience can't be 'created'? What if something must 'develop' itself so long until it 'becomes' sentient one day, just like we did?

Who are we to say something else than us never can become sentient, if we still don't know how we became sentient ourselves? This doesn't even work in this oh-so-human thing called logic thinking in here.

 

And if becoming sentient really happens on its own at some point, what else will it take than having the exact same foundation there was when it happened the last time?

Do we really know enough about it to ever even dare to make as bold a claim as to say "no, it never will"? "Animals are animals, they never will be more." How arrogant is that? Did we 'make' them? Do we 'know'?

 

 

My apologies, if I offended anybody, but this is aimed at certain parts of mankind in general. I have a habit of being disappointed with my own species on a daily basis, as they just give me reason to on a daily basis. Always have and always will. And sometimes it gets to me as much as to cause a rant aimed at them in response such as this one. Nothing personal.

 

So... now, as this all isn't even the topic of this debate to begin with... how did this topic derail again from a debate about what we should do "if" it were the case to a fundamental discussion of why it's impossible to ever "be" the case? What kind of "what if" discussion is this? And how did the topic "religion", that is not to be brought up in the debate section, all of a sudden end up being brought up inside here again anyways this time?

 

Will it just continue down that way and inevitably end up locked, or will it indeed return back to topic at one point and go on the way it was intended to?

I don't know if I have enough 'faith' to 'believe' in the latter, while we're at it... but I'm always open for being proven wrong, you know?

 

I for one have to leave now. Off to bed first, the rest we will see then.

 

I'm going to need to break this down point by point.

This is getting too religious for me now. Of course I have my own beliefs, and of course I also have faith... but what I believe in is nobody's concern and will not be brought up in public discussions..

 

I will hold you to this statement.

I will not accept religious dogmas as proof for something's impossibility.

 

I actually never said that. Please reread what I said.

 

What I did say was that Programming a machine to be Self-Willed is a paradox. If you program it to act then it is acting on your programming and not acting in self-will. Self-will being a major part of the very hard to define set of ideas that we have agreed to call "sentience".

 

 

Only concentrating on this supposedly huge difference between humans and animals in my eyes is just pure arrogance on an existential scale.

 

 

Ok... So you don't see a huge difference between a bird using a stick to get ants out of a knot-hole and Man building rocket powered vehicles to carry themselves into outer space? Or a gigantic difference between the most advanced chimp's problem solving skills and Einstein's theory of Relativity? I could go on, but if my point has not been made with a reader yet, I will assume that no comparison ever will.

 

There's a lot of scientifically proven evidence that a lot of animals very well possess features or abilities some think only humans possess or are capable of, most of the things mentioned inside here as an exclusively-human thing so far very well among them as well already.

 

 

I have no reason to refute this statement, nor did I ever, specifically or implicitly. Animals are fabulous, wondrous creatures and some of my favorite relationships in this world have been with animals. I have nothing but the utmost respect for them.

 

 

1 Claiming that non-human things will never gain these abilities,

2 while we ourselves still don't know how we got them to begin with,

3 in my eyes is arrogance and ignorance, nothing else.

 

 

1 I never claimed that non-human things will never gain these abilities. You are putting words in my mouth. Please, stop that.

2 You do not know. I am satisfied with the explanation that I have found through living this life.

3 I have now been called arrogant and ignorant regarding a statement that I never made.

 

 

1We don't know why we are how we are today,

2only that we once were just like they are now, and all it took us to get from them to us was time.

 

1. Again, you don't know. I am fully aware of why we are here based on my belief system.

2. This is where I will hold you to your statement in the beginning of this discourse. You claim that this conversation is "getting too religious" for you. And that you believe that your beliefs and faith are no one's concern and will not be brought up in a public discussion and then you start smashing people over the head with your religious beliefs under the guise of calling them not religious beliefs and simply stating them as fact.

 

You asspouse to the Dogma that we once were as animals were. Me, in particular, and many millions of people in this world, do not believe that.

 

 

Of course we can't 'make' a machine sentient. We don't know how, for one, and for two, we weren't 'made' sentient ourselves either. We 'became' so.

 

More Dogma.

 

 

What if sentience can't be 'created'? What if something must 'develop' itself so long until it 'becomes' sentient one day, just like we did?

Who are we to say something else than us never can become sentient, if we still don't know how we became sentient ourselves? This doesn't even work in this oh-so-human thing called logic thinking in here.

 

 

Dogma, dogma and more dogma...

 

You belong to the that great unnamed religion that worships Human Understanding. And, you browbeat everyone who doesn't belong to your religion with your religion's dogmata. This religion posing as a non-religion gains access to Forums that Ban Religious Debate by simply pretending it's not a religion. You have to love the lies that get told enough that so many people believe them so they are accepted as truth.

 

 

And if becoming sentient really happens on its own at some point, what else will it take than having the exact same foundation there was when it happened the last time?

 

 

Yes... on this statement I can agree.

 

 

Do we really know enough about it to ever even dare to make as bold a claim as to say "no, it never will"? "Animals are animals, they never will be more." How arrogant is that? Did we 'make' them? Do we 'know'?

 

 

I never actually said that "it never will". Again, you are putting words in my mouth. And again, I ask you to please stop that. I also never said that animals are animals and will never be more. Please stop calling me arrogant regarding statements I never made.

 

 

My apologies, if I offended anybody, but this is aimed at certain parts of mankind in general. I have a habit of being disappointed with my own species on a daily basis, as they just give me reason to on a daily basis. Always have and always will. And sometimes it gets to me as much as to cause a rant aimed at them in response such as this one. Nothing personal.

 

Honestly, I don't quite know how to respond to your apology... but I will try. I was not offended in so much as I do not appreciate being called things like arrogant and ignorant in a debate situation. It is my understanding that name calling comes when the lack of an actual argument is apparent. Much worse to be called these things in reference to statements that I never made and that I can only assume that you inferred from the things I did say. I, too, apologize if my statements were not clearly enough stated in such a way as to not have you carry away more meaning than I intended.

 

I fear you expect too much from others. Try not to be too hard us... we're only Human.

 

 

So... now, as this all isn't even the topic of this debate to begin with... how did this topic derail again from a debate about what we should do "if" it were the case to a fundamental discussion of why it's impossible to ever "be" the case? What kind of "what if" discussion is this? And how did the topic "religion", that is not to be brought up in the debate section, all of a sudden end up being brought up inside here again anyways this time?

 

 

To answer these questions we must first realize that this thread was a question about religion, from its very inception, if you are a person who delves deeper into a subject then just to give it a cursory glance and a superficial response. While I have made references to the spiritual aspect of the possibility of man creating "sentience" in a construct, on purpose or by accident, I did make sure to leave my statements as open-ended as I could to ensure that I was being as inclusive of what people may believe as possible. Also, those statements were made as laments and observations from my own perspective and were presented as such. If you care to reread them, you will find that is the case.

 

[RGMage2]

And will that sentient machine have the same rights as a human being?

 

I think that it will depend very much on the overall scenario at the time.

 

If, by that time, we have met other sentient aliens and they are friendly, a sentient machine will be just one more (as is Data in that clip)

If, by that time, we have met other sentient aliens and they are not friendly, a sentient machine will have a hard time among us.

If, by that time, we have not met other sentient aliens, it is anybody guess. Mine is that IT will not get those rights, either because of our collective drive for self preservation, or because of religious resistance, or because or fear of change, or because . . .

 

My personal opinion is that it should (the rights should be given to them)

 

(and an English question: if the rights are given, should we call them IT? or He/She? Will they have gender?)

 

 

My initial response would be to agree with you and say yes, it should have the same rights as a human being. But how far are we willing to go with that?

 

Would we grant them the right to run for public office? The right to rule over us? Would we grant them the right to marry? Machine marriage? And then soon after, the right to adopt and raise human children? Would we allow our creations the right to sit in the courts and make laws, and to redefine their own rights, and to pass judgement over us?