quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H. Humbert
I remembering hearing in grade school that every cell in the human body is replaced every 7 years. Using the same line of thinking, I wondered if in 7 years time I would be aware that nothing about me was the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>

---

I see that you still haven't explained what desire is. Neither have you apologized for your mischaracterization of my reply. If you do not want to do either of those, there is no reason for me to think you are willing or able to have an honest discussion here. So until you do, I see no reason to respond to you until you show such a willingness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

[quote]Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>

---

How have I mischaracterized your reply?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

[quote]Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>

---

How have I mischaracterized your reply?

---

I have explained that painstakingly clear already. I don't see the need to repeat myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox
The question of whether AI or artificial bodies with scanned and uploaded memories - both of which might act as if they are conscious - are actually conscious is not exactly the same as questioning whether people around us are conscious. Questioning the latter means putting ourselves, our own individual mind and ego at the center of things. It means entertaining such scenarios as the Matrix or The Truman Show or something far more imaginative than we've ever seen in movies. The possibility that our incomplete understanding of how consciousness arises might cause us to make some seriously big mistakes without even realizing it, is much more reasonable.

We can imagine a machine which is build to look and move exactly like a human being. We can also imagine that machine being programmed to act exactly like a human being while lacking the self awareness that it mimics with its behavior.

---

quote:

---

If we can imagine that, why not imagine that a destructive brain scan then uploaded into an artificial brain and body might transfer enough information to function as it is supposed to, without including the actual consciousness. This would be synonymous to the hologram characters from Star Trek who are programmed to act like certain real people for the purpose of entertaining or informing the visitor, but who are not actually self aware. So what is the fiction, the holograms who come alive or the ones who never do? And can we ever really know that answer? The nightmare scenario could be that we eventually upload all human “minds” into artificial brains and bodies where they seem to continue being human, but in reality are only behaving as if aware, while truly unaware of themselves. And the scariest part of that nightmare is that nobody would even realize it was happening.

---

quote:

---

Of course I tend to agree philosophically with Kurtzweil. I think machines will eventually be as sentient as humans. Don't know if we'll ever get to the point where we can actually scan our own minds and put them into another set of hardware, but I tend to think it is possible and even probable given enough time.

---

quote:

---

It matters quite a lot at this stage in the game because right now relatively little is understood about the brain; certainly far less than is understood about arms and legs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...

---

Okay, let's try.

You claimed that I claimed that you could claim your nobel prize because I couldn't answer a question. That was not the case. It was obvious from my posts that I said you could claim your nobel prize if you knew the answer because it has not been resolved at this point in time by the people studying the question.

See the difference in what I said and what you claimed I said?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...

---

Okay, let's try.

You claimed that I claimed that you could claim your nobel prize because I couldn't answer a question. That was not the case. It was obvious from my posts that I said you could claim your nobel prize if you knew the answer because it has not been resolved at this point in time by the people studying the question.

See the difference in what I said and what you claimed I said?

---

Oh, that post. Ha--I didn't even know which one you were talking about...

But I didn't mischaracterize that post. Sure, I responded to what you meant vs. what words you used to say it.

---

quote:

---

But that whole "if I don't know it it must be Nobel-level" schtick has been around since thr Nobel Prizes were first awarded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...

---

Okay, let's try.

You claimed that I claimed that you could claim your nobel prize because I couldn't answer a question. That was not the case. It was obvious from my posts that I said you could claim your nobel prize if you knew the answer because it has not been resolved at this point in time by the people studying the question.

See the difference in what I said and what you claimed I said?

---

Oh, that post. Ha--I didn't even know which one you were talking about...

But I didn't mischaracterize that post. Sure, I responded to what you meant vs. what words you used to say it.

---

That's the point, you didn't respond to what I meant.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But that whole "if I don't know it it must be Nobel-level" schtick has been around since thr Nobel Prizes were first awarded.

---

But it is true also. Unless, of course, you can show that that question has already been solved. So be my guest, show that I am wrong in thinking the question has not been solved yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
Clearly, the truth of the fact that I know the answer does not rest on me telling you the answer.

---

quote:

---

Actually, I do find that hard to imagine. Mimicking self awareness would also mean that you have to mimick a number of internal processes that simulate this self-awareness, such as creating an 'image' of what the program does as such or has done in the past. But if this happen, I see no reason to think that this would not automatically result in self-awareness, perhaps not as intended but at least as a necessary byproduct of programming such responses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomk80

quote:

---

Originally posted by ergo123
Clearly, the truth of the fact that I know the answer does not rest on me telling you the answer.

---

Clearly, you are a troll. Clearly, you do not know the answer, otherwise you would have told it by now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Tom wrote:

quote:

---

Actually, I do find that hard to imagine. Mimicking self awareness would also mean that you have to mimick a number of internal processes that simulate this self-awareness, such as creating an 'image' of what the program does as such or has done in the past. But if this happen, I see no reason to think that this would not automatically result in self-awareness, perhaps not as intended but at least as a necessary byproduct of programming such responses.

---

I think the assertion that anything mimicking self awareness must also mimic internal processes is inaccurate, or at least, unproven. We do not yet know exactly what stimulates self awareness. At least not what from I've read on AI and neuroscientific research. Perhaps I am wrong about this. Anyone else have further info on this topic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox
I think the assertion that anything mimicking self awareness must also mimic internal processes is inaccurate, or at least, unproven. We do not yet know exactly what stimulates self awareness. At least not what from I've read on AI and neuroscientific research. Perhaps I am wrong about this. Anyone else have further info on this topic?

---