Can sentience be cuased by non-sentient parts? If not why not, and if so how so?

[Aloysium]

All the electronic technology and the simpler tools that preceded it are extensions of the person. A rational mind is required to capture the moment, split it from the past and future, to conceptualize dimensions, to imagine time and space. Our physical forms, I see as being having been moulded to express our relational being within the physical universe. That human spirit is central and rooted in the eternal Spirit that brings all into existence. Machines are extensions of our being. It may be that here, I am coming around to the idea, expressed by the OP on another thread, that the body too may be conceptualized as a machine. I don’t like it because the body deserves great respect, being the temple of God.

 

[Nixbits]

IWantGod:

Its one thing to code something to behave in a particular way, but to actually create self-awareness is a different thing entirely. What is it?

I agree that creating a self-aware computer or machine is qualitatively different to programming the behaviour of one. But that doesn’t address the point I made. How can it be shown that a self-aware machine cannot be built?

 

[Nixbits]

Ynotzap, I think I now understand the difference in our opinions.

ynotzap:

Thoughts and ideas are not material but spiritual in nature . .

I don’t accept this. Thoughts and ideas are not material, but that does not necessarily mean that they are spiritual, depending of course on the definition of the word ‘spiritual’ that you are using here.

ynotzap:

Rational knowledge is a product of human intelligence which is a spiritual faculty of the soul. Science can not produce a spiritual soul. It will never produce self-awareness.

I don’t accept these assertions either. I think that intelligence is an emergent property of a brain. I don’t see why it would necessarily be impossible for an artificial ‘brain’ to be built that could develop self-awareness. In any case, self-awareness is not the exclusive preserve of humans. Some animals have been shown to be self-aware.

 

[IWantGod]

I agree that creating a self-aware computer or machine is qualitatively different to programming the behaviour of one. But that doesn’t address the point I made. How can it be shown that a self-aware machine cannot be built?

You first have to know what it means to build self-awareness. You have to know what it is. To assume that what you are essentially dealing with is “information and functionality” is just an assumption with no conceptual or logical basis as to why that would be the case. All you know is that “self-awareness exists in the brain”; that doesn’t necessarily equate to “the brain is self-aware”

 

[Nixbits]

IWantGod:

All you know is that “self-awareness exists in the brain”; that doesn’t necessarily equate to “the brain is self-aware”.

I agree with you. One does not necessarily follow from the other. But I think that this misses the point. Ynotzap asserted that humans can never create a self-aware machine and further asserted that this is because self-awareness is a property of a spiritual soul which only humans possess. I don’t accept this and ynotzap has not provided any evidence for these assertions, as far as I can see.

ynotzap:

A machine, computer, sensing device, can never go outside of it’s programming on it’s own and direct itself.

I’m not an expert in artificial intelligence, but I’m not convinced that this is correct. Machines have already been built that can learn. They don’t just follow a set of pre-programmed instructions. They can evolve their own strategies. The field of AI is just in its infancy. I don’t see the justification for claiming that self-aware AI is completely impossible. I just don’t think that our knowledge of AI and of what it means to be self-aware is sufficiently advanced to make such a claim.

 

[ynotzap]

Ynotzap, I think I now understand the difference in our opinions.

I don’t accept this. Thoughts and ideas are not material, but that does not necessarily mean that they are spiritual, depending of course on the definition of the word ‘spiritual’ that you are using here.

Siritual: Not tangible to the senses, non-corporeal, non-material, real but only known to the intellect, can be known through it’s material effects. the brain is not the intellect but the center of the nervous system producing images called the " phantasm" images from which the intellect withdraws the idea, or nature of things that form our intellectual knowledge.

Nixbits:

I don’t accept these assertions either. I think that intelligence is an emergent property of a brain. I don’t see why it would necessarily be impossible for an artificial ‘brain’ to be built that could develop self-awareness. In any case, self-awareness is not the exclusive preserve of humans. Some animals have been shown to be self-aware.

People get confused thinking that the brain is the intellect. The brain belongs to the body and is physical, the intellect belongs to the soul of man which is spiritual, it is the nature of intellectual knowledge that reveals the spirituality of the soul. In this life the body and soul act as a unit (the person) they are co-principles, and it is the soul that forms the body, it is responsible for all the ordering activity in the body. I explained that animals have what is called sense knowledge, instinct, and programing found in the DNA We can predict what animals will do, but we can’t always predict what humans will due to the fact they have rational intelligence and will. Animals can be trained but humans can resist training because of the spiritual faculty called “will” or volition and rational intelligence. When is the last time you had an intelligent conversation with a dog? There is a major difference. I explained self-awareness, I know that I know, etc. Instead of asserting that you don’t accept, do some investigation, and follow the rational evidence. You have been given some but you haven’t shown why you refuse to accept. Study Metaphysics review the thoughts of St.Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, Peter Keeft.

 

[IWantGod]

I agree with you. One does not necessarily follow from the other. But I think that this misses the point. Ynotzap asserted that humans can never create a self-aware machine and further asserted that this is because self-awareness is a property of a spiritual soul which only humans possess. I don’t accept this and ynotzap has not provided any evidence for these assertions, as far as I can see.

I’m not an expert in artificial intelligence, but I’m not convinced that this is correct. Machines have already been built that can learn. They don’t just follow a set of pre-programmed instructions. They can evolve their own strategies. The field of AI is just in its infancy. I don’t see the justification for claiming that self-aware AI is completely impossible. I just don’t think that our knowledge of AI and of what it means to be self-aware is sufficiently advanced to make such a claim.

I agree, one has not provided a deductive argument against a self-aware AI. But a self learning AI, which is essentially just an evolving process, does not constitute the same thing as “understanding” or “self-awareness” of an evolving process. Thus it doesn’t seem reasonable to think of Self Awareness as essentially a “process” or even a collection of processes because there is nothing about “processes” in and of themselves that suggests the possibility of self awareness. There is only the fact that self-awareness requires those processes to interact with and understand the physical world which does imply some-kind of dualism. Self aware information is a problematic concept, because it doesn’t seem logical in the first place that information can be self-aware.

We don’t know what self-awareness is, and until we do it is highly unlikely that we will ever create self-awareness and perhaps it is impossible from a physical standpoint.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . We don’t know what self-awareness is, and until we do it is highly unlikely that we will ever create self-awareness and perhaps it is impossible from a physical standpoint.

People travel to the farthest places to know what is closest.

 

[ynotzap]

I agree with you. One does not necessarily follow from the other. But I think that this misses the point. Ynotzap asserted that humans can never create a self-aware machine and further asserted that this is because self-awareness is a property of a spiritual soul which only humans possess. I don’t accept this and ynotzap has not provided any evidence for these assertions, as far as I can see.

I’m not an expert in artificial intelligence, but I’m not convinced that this is correct. Machines have already been built that can learn. They don’t just follow a set of pre-programmed instructions. They can evolve their own strategies. The field of AI is just in its infancy. I don’t see the justification for claiming that self-aware AI is completely impossible. I just don’t think that our knowledge of AI and of what it means to be self-aware is sufficiently advanced to make such a claim.

Explain the phenomenon “I know that I know”, or do you understand what is meant by this expression? What do you think self-awareness is, surely you must have some idea? What does "spirit or spiritual mean to you? What is the nature of knowledge, or thought? What is consciousness. What kind of evidence do you want, physical to explain spiritual? What I stated are not assertions but facts not necessarily gotten from science books, but from Metaphysics. Just because one doesn’t understand Metaphysics, or even some of it, does that automatically mean it’s not true? Science doesn’t even have a clue to the existence of the spiritual reality, so why look in an area that does not have it. Empirical science does not transcend the material or physical so how would they know? People are looking in all the wrong places. Empirical science is “earth bound” and so are those who have made them the source of all knowledge. People are more involved is science fiction, then real science which does not limit the sources of knowledge. Until you can explain those questions I asked, then we agree to disagree. But don’t cut yourself short just because you don’t accept, investigate.

 

[Nixbits]

I thought I was investigating by asking for the evidence (scientific, logical or metaphysical) that convinced you. Now you’ve explained your viewpoint (thank you). But I don’t see the justification for your premise about self-awareness being dependent on a spiritual soul.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . But I don’t see the justification for your premise about self-awareness being dependent on a spiritual soul.

It isn’t possible to translate what is meant by the spiritual soul into your worldview. It is invisible within it, although the term refers to pretty much the truest of realities. I do believe no one can give you what you want. My take home message would ultimately be that reality is all about what we do and that it contains an imperative to give of oneself. Whatever belief system one holds, the closer love is to its centre, the truer it is.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium, thank you (once again) for taking the time to try to explain. Your posts always make me smile. I rarely understand them. I cannot tell if they are deep or deepities. But I appreciate your contributions.