Replies

'Thinking computers' will never exist, because thought is an essentially non-material or spiritual phenomenon, and therefore cannot in principle be re-created materially.

Indeed. There is a group of computer scientists (can't remember what their theory is called, though) that have pretty much come to the same conclusion: that self-awareness is not a function of sufficiently sophisticated hardware, but is something that lies outside of science, or at least outside of known science. Basically, they believe the spark of self-awareness is a function of having a soul or something like it, something that cannot be replicated.

Of course, those of you who know me, know that I believe that we do have a soul given to us by the Most High God. A computer doesn't.

The only possibility I can see for 'thinking' computers, is to replace a computer's central processing unit and memory storage with a collection of neurons, essentially a cloned brain. I'm not sure if such a thing is even possible, and if it were, if it would work as expected (which I have serious doubts about). Furthermore, if someone did do it and it worked as expected, then I think that the resulting 'machine' would hardly qualify as a computer anymore.

The only possibility I can see for 'thinking' computers

I'm sure that in the future it will be possible to write unimaginably complex programs that will be able to mimic human behavior in some ways. But a computer can never truly think.

Indeed. There is a group of computer scientists (can't remember what their theory is called, though) that have pretty much come to the same conclusion: that self-awareness is not a function of sufficiently sophisticated hardware, but is something that lies outside of science, or at least outside of known science. Basically, they believe the spark of self-awareness is a function of having a soul or something like it, something that cannot be replicated.

And they base this conclusion on *what*, exactly?

Until we have a better idea of what "self awareness" is, it's wildly premature to jump to conclusions about what it does or does not require.

I'm aware of Searle's arguments, but they fall apart upon examination, being based on too many unsupported presumptions (i.e., begging the question).

And if a "soul" is required for self-awareness, what about the fact that most people deny that animals have souls, yet most mammals and birds show clear self-awareness?

Of course, those of you who know me, know that I believe that we do have a soul given to us by the Most High God. A computer doesn't.

A religious presumption is hardly any better than a nonreligious presumption when it comes as a foundation for reasoned conclusions.

The only possibility I can see for 'thinking' computers, is to replace a computer's central processing unit and memory storage with a collection of neurons, essentially a cloned brain.

And why do you feel that there's something "special" about neurons that would allow them to "enable" thought that an electronic equivalent would not? What about circuits that exactly replicate the biochemical responses of equivalent neurons, signal-wise?

Robot Demonstrates Self Awareness

This link has been provided courtesy of Darwin Central, "The Conspiracy that Cares."