Sentience
-
No. If you do, you're deluded.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Are you sure of your above statment? If the machine takes care of your willingly and of its accords, can you claim that it's sentient?
"Willingness" and intentions has nothing to do with computers.
There is only codes and execution of codes, even if it is a generated individuated behavior based on a particular situation, it is also run based on the execution of the programming codes, and no consciousness can ever be involved. -
Mod going out of topic...If something cannot be experience, then it is not Dharma.Originally posted by sinweiy:be it dogma or truth...doesn't matter here...as Dharma is neither dogma nor conventional truth though.
one can't even "think" of Dharma let alone explain it. it's that profound, noe?.
that which word can explain is not the real Dharma, but just conventional dharma.
/\ -
By giving a computer an continually evolving program with unlimited resources, it can decide on its own decision whether to executer certain actions.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No. If you do, you're deluded.
"Willingness" and intentions has nothing to do with computers.
There is only codes and execution of codes, even if it is a generated individuated behavior based on a particular situation, it is also run based on the execution of the programming codes, and no consciousness can ever be involved.
AEN, you are like a cup which is full and cannot contain any more information. Time for you to be open-minded. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
it's "conventional" dharma.
Mod going out of topic...If something cannot be experience, then it is not Dharma.
ok, back to topic.
/\ -
No matter how advanced human technology becomes, we won't be able to create a sentient being.
Even a super computer that has artificial intelligence built in and can defeat the world's top chess player is not considered a life, not to mention sentient being.
A computer though more complicated but in nature is the same as a series of electric pulses, and each combination has different meaning.
For example 110 means happy, 111 means angry, but it doesn't mean the computer is happy because it is us the humans interpret the 110 as happy.
We can even make a computer talk, but it is just like playing certain audio file when a set of pulses reach the CPU, just like an amplifier.
As long as there is no conscious occupying and controlling the object, it is not sentient being.
We can create baby, but that is not considered creating a sentient being, rather it is creating a physical object that enable a sentient being to occupy it till the body comes to an end. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Computer characters in games and simulation and so on can also decide and make their own decisions.
By giving a computer an continually evolving program with unlimited resources, it can decide on its own decision whether to executer certain actions.
No matter how sophisticated and complicated it is or how 'self evolving' or how 'caring' it appears to be -- it cannot change the fact that it is based on programming codes, that without the codes it cannot function, and like I said many many times, "AI simply refers to fixed meta-rules that are not self-referential for a computer or program to work. Awareness is not like this however, awareness is perfectly self-referential without referring to anything else."
No amount of programming can ever produce a bit of consciousness because consciousness has nothing to do with appearance and likeness with humans. We can reproduce the likeness and appearance but never the consciousness through artificial design.AEN, you are like a cup which is full and cannot contain any more information. Time for you to be open-minded.
Open mindedness is not the same as irrational or delusional. -
Computer characters are pre-programmed to execute certain decisions.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Computer characters in games and simulation and so on can also decide and make their own decisions.
No matter how sophisticated and complicated it is or how 'self evolving' or how 'caring' it appears to be -- it cannot change the fact that it is based on programming codes, that without the codes it cannot function, and like I said many many times, "AI simply refers to fixed meta-rules that are not self-referential for a computer or program to work. Awareness is not like this however, awareness is perfectly self-referential without referring to anything else."
No amount of programming can ever produce a bit of consciousness because consciousness has nothing to do with appearance and likeness with humans. We can reproduce the likeness and appearance but never the consciousness through artificial design.
Open mindedness is not the same as irrational or delusional.
But I am saying is programming a computer to reprogramme itself on its own. Are you sure that instinct is not akin to a computer programme? With self- evolving and unlimited resources, a computer will learn to grow on its own. With this new awareness, comes self conciousness. -
Note that you are using binary codes to represent something that is very difficult to represent even in binary, however at the higher ends, we can use algorithmns to represent even the most complex sequences. If the object becomes self-aware as well as aware of its surroundings and reacts to it, would you consider it sentient?Originally posted by justdoit77:No matter how advanced human technology becomes, we won't be able to create a sentient being.
Even a super computer that has artificial intelligence built in and can defeat the world's top chess player is not considered a life, not to mention sentient being.
A computer though more complicated but in nature is the same as a series of electric pulses, and each combination has different meaning.
For example 110 means happy, 111 means angry, but it doesn't mean the computer is happy because it is us the humans interpret the 110 as happy.
We can even make a computer talk, but it is just like playing certain audio file when a set of pulses reach the CPU, just like an amplifier.
As long as there is no conscious occupying and controlling the object, it is not sentient being.
We can create baby, but that is not considered creating a sentient being, rather it is creating a physical object that enable a sentient being to occupy it till the body comes to an end. -
And that ability to program no itself IS also based on programming codes -- and therefore like I said, "AI simply refers to fixed meta-rules that are not self-referential for a computer or program to work. Awareness is not like this however, awareness is perfectly self-referential without referring to anything else."Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Computer characters are pre-programmed to execute certain decisions.
But I am saying is programming a computer to reprogramme itself on its own. Are you sure that instinct is not akin to a computer programme? With self- evolving and unlimited resources, a computer will learn to grow on its own. With this new awareness, comes self conciousness.
No amount of programming can ever produce a bit of consciousness because consciousness has nothing to do with appearance and likeness with humans. We can reproduce the likeness and appearance but never the consciousness through artificial design. -
Actually not just difficult, but is unable for a binary code 110 given in the above example to express the feeling of happy.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Note that you are using binary codes to represent something that is very difficult to represent even in binary, however at the higher ends, we can use algorithmns to represent even the most complex sequences. If the object becomes self-aware as well as aware of its surroundings and reacts to it, would you consider it sentient?
It can only create an output that we think the computer is happy.
For example:
1) Emit series of lighting on the screen showing a smiling face
or
2) Play an mp3 file of someone laughing
But that is not the same as happy. If 1 lit dot on screen doesn't equate to happy, why then series of lit dot equate to happy?
For sentient being like us, when we feel happy, we can feel that.
But for a robot, when they talk, they don't even know they are talking other than playing different combination of mp3 upon sensing different set of sound.
The robot can have a small device in their body to do some maintenance work, for example when run low in battery, automatic open up the solar energy system to recharge.
It can also self-evolve for example, when the humidity increase, turn on the other 2 backup dehumidifier in the body 24 hours a day.
But all the above is in nature the same as having a sensor to capture the input that trigger another portion to act on it.
It is more complicated then 110, maybe 110010101000, but the complexity and the quantity of the device doesn't help to make it a sentient being.
Just my opinion. -
Fine, tell that to the DNA in your body that you don't need it.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:And that ability to program no itself IS also based on programming codes -- and therefore like I said, "AI simply refers to fixed meta-rules that are not self-referential for a computer or program to work. Awareness is not like this however, awareness is perfectly self-referential without referring to anything else."
No amount of programming can ever produce a bit of consciousness because consciousness has nothing to do with appearance and likeness with humans. We can reproduce the likeness and appearance but never the consciousness through artificial design. -
justdoit77, that is not self-evolving programming. I am talking about pulling out all stops and let the computer have a character of its own, able to love and hate based on its own decision. The internal language will be more complex than any basic binary codes could easily provide.Originally posted by justdoit77:Actually not just difficult, but is unable for a binary code 110 given in the above example to express the feeling of happy.
It can only create an output that we think the computer is happy.
For example:
1) Emit series of lighting on the screen showing a smiling face
or
2) Play an mp3 file of someone laughing
But that is not the same as happy. If 1 lit dot on screen doesn't equate to happy, why then series of lit dot equate to happy?
For sentient being like us, when we feel happy, we can feel that.
But for a robot, when they talk, they don't even know they are talking other than playing different combination of mp3 upon sensing different set of sound.
The robot can have a small device in their body to do some maintenance work, for example when run low in battery, automatic open up the solar energy system to recharge.
It can also self-evolve for example, when the humidity increase, turn on the other 2 backup dehumidifier in the body 24 hours a day.
But all the above is in nature the same as having a sensor to capture the input that trigger another portion to act on it.
It is more complicated then 110, maybe 110010101000, but the complexity and the quantity of the device doesn't help to make it a sentient being.
Just my opinion. -
love, hate, feelings, come from self-consciousness and until more research comes in, it is more than likely to be "an emergent".
Something that nobody can replicate because nobody understand how it works.
What is an emergent? It is something that pops up unexpectedly. It has roots, that is to say, it comes as a result of of interaction of "individual separate units" communicating an interacting with each other. Nobody knows why the interaction of these individual units in such simple ways results in the phenomenon....
Like life. How is it that when carbon molecules interact in a certain way, you get "life"? Life is said to be an emergent because nobody can explain why when carbon molecules interact in certain ways, you have life.
Like consciousness. How is it that when you structure cells in a certain way, (brain) you have consciousness?
Some people think that there is a universal something that fuses with the brain to produce consciousness while others think that it is because of the split second feedback loops within the brain that results in consciousness.
Get it?
-
DNA merely affects the appearance, your body, but does not produce consciousness as consciousness is self referential.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Fine, tell that to the DNA in your body that you don't need it.
The experience of being self-aware is the unique experience of "being" --- an experience so basic that it is indescribable in terms of anything else --- something that no synthetic computer will ever have.
Eventually, it will be proved that no formal information processing system is capable of self-awareness and that thus formal computers cannot be self-aware in principle. This proof will use the abstract self-referential structure of self-awareness to establish that no formal computer can ever be self-aware. -
Fine, we can admit that DNA doesn't affect whether you are an ant or human. Similarly, DNA also doesn't affect your instincts. Your arguments are based on Assimov's 3 laws on robotics and not ultimate reality that you so like to refer to.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:DNA merely affects the appearance, your body, but does not produce consciousness as consciousness is self referential.
The experience of being self-aware is the unique experience of "being" --- an experience so basic that it is indescribable in terms of anything else --- something that no synthetic computer will ever have.
Eventually, it will be proved that no formal information processing system is capable of self-awareness and that thus formal computers cannot be self-aware in principle. This proof will use the abstract self-referential structure of self-awareness to establish that no formal computer can ever be self-aware. -
Ultimate reality is just luminous emptiness.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Fine, we can admit that DNA doesn't affect whether you are an ant or human. Similarly, DNA also doesn't affect your instincts. Your arguments are based on Assimov's 3 laws on robotics and not ultimate reality that you so like to refer to. -
Questionable answer.... Refer back to my earlier posting...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Ultimate reality is just luminous emptiness. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Questionable answer.... Refer back to my earlier posting...
-
In case you do not know what is 'true nature' --
http://www.ahalmaas.com/glossary/t/true_nature.htm* The first quality of true nature is that it is inseparable from awareness. Our true nature is inherently aware. This is the fact of luminosity, the fact of light, the fact of consciousness. We know this because when we experience any of the essential manifestations, we recognize that Being is (delete in) inseparable from some kind of awareness, sensitivity, in-touchness, or consciousness. Awareness is not something in addition to true nature; it is an inherent and inseparable characteristic of true nature, the way heat is inherent in and inseparable from fire.
* The second characteristic of true reality is that this field of awareness, this field of presence, is pervasive and infinite, and includes everything within it. In fact, it is a oneness, an indivisible unity. This is similar to the Buddhist notion of the “wisdom of equality or evenness.” The fact that there are patterns within the field does not mean there are discrete objects… The field is all one consciousness with different patterns in different places. So the entire soul is unitary as well. When we recognize true nature and we lose the sense of boundaries, we recognize that oneness pervades the whole universe. God has one mind.
* The third characteristic is that true nature is dynamic. Reality is moving and changing all the time. This is obvious when you notice that your perception of your inner experience – or of the whole world – is not a snapshot; it is a movie. It is inherently in a constant state of change and transformation. It is not a static presence. This is related the Buddhist notion of the “all-accomplishing wisdom.” Reality is a dynamic presence that is always changing through shifts in the manifest patterns. In fact, the presence of change is implicit in the fact of awareness; without it, there is no awareness.
* The openness of true nature is its fourth characteristic. Openness means an infinite number of possibilities – open to be anything, open to manifest as anything, unlimited in its potential. This is the indeterminacy and inexhaustibility that we discussed in the last chapter. Reality is always changing because its true nature is completely open. This is the space dimension of our Being: when you recognize true nature, you find it to be spacious. In other words spaciousness is inherent in the presence that is true nature. The whole universe is a deep mysterious nothingness, openness, lightness, and complete absence of any heaviness. And this very mysterious, delicate spaciousness has a luminosity inherent in it, a glimmer, a radiance that gives it (delete a) awareness of itself.
* The fifth major characteristic of true nature is that it is not only awareness, oneness, dynamism, and openness, but also knowingness. This is similar to the Buddhist notion of the “wisdom of discrimination,” or the discriminating awareness of the Buddha. It is inherent to essential presence that it is not only awareness of presence but simultaneously the discrimination of the particular quality of presence, such as Compassion or Peace. This knowingness is inherent to presence, inherent to the awareness of presence. (Spacecruiser Inquiry, pg 32) -
DNA is relative truth. Luminous emptiness is ultimate reality.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Fine, we can admit that DNA doesn't affect whether you are an ant or human. Similarly, DNA also doesn't affect your instincts. Your arguments are based on Assimov's 3 laws on robotics and not ultimate reality that you so like to refer to. -
Wrong, if DNA is not an absolute truth, then why is the basic building block of all physical living entities on this world?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:DNA is relative truth. Luminous emptiness is ultimate reality. -
Living entities is also a relative truth.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Wrong, if DNA is not an absolute truth, then why is the basic building block of all physical living entities on this world?
Ultimately there is no self. -
Nothing exists because there is no self...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Living entities is also a relative truth.
Ultimately there is no self.
There is no ultimate reality because there is no luminant enlightement. -
No self is not non-existence. No self is not nihilism. It is about no discrete, separate, permanent, graspable self. This means, there is no entity called 'self' to be found. All seemingly 'entities' are empty, their seeming solidity or being an 'entity' is entirely a projection of the mind.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Nothing exists because there is no self...
There is no ultimate reality because there is no luminant enlightement.
Furthermore, everything arises due to conditioned genesis -- aggregation of causes and conditions, and is empty of any inherent existence. It is completely transient, disjoint, complete every moment.
fe (Self) is nothing other than the continuous flow of the Now Moment.
The Now Moment ceases as it arises. This moment must completely ceased
and serves as the CAUSE for the next moment to arise.
Therefore Self is a process of series Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, Self6...etc
A fixed entity 'Self' does not exist, what really exists is a momentary Self.
Under deep meditation, one is able to observe and sense the karmic and mental factors from moment to moment,
it is these factors that are succeeded from moment to moment and life and life but not a fixed entity.
When the karmic and mental factors subsides, it is known as "The True and Only (and Inherently egoless) Conscious Light (Itself)".
- Thusness -
So unconcious behaviour is not self? Then why do animals and humans have instinct? There will be and always be karmic and mental factors even in deep meditation.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No self is not non-existence. No self is not nihilism. It is about no discrete, separate, permanent, graspable self. This means, there is no entity called 'self' to be found. All seemingly 'entities' are empty, their seeming solidity or being an 'entity' is entirely a projection of the mind.
Furthermore, everything arises due to conditioned genesis -- aggregation of causes and conditions, and is empty of any inherent existence. It is completely transient, disjoint, complete every moment.
fe (Self) is nothing other than the continuous flow of the Now Moment.
The Now Moment ceases as it arises. This moment must completely ceased
and serves as the CAUSE for the next moment to arise.
Therefore Self is a process of series Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, Self6...etc
A fixed entity 'Self' does not exist, what really exists is a momentary Self.
Under deep meditation, one is able to observe and sense the karmic and mental factors from moment to moment,
it is these factors that are succeeded from moment to moment and life and life but not a fixed entity.
When the karmic and mental factors subsides, it is known as "The True and Only (and Inherently egoless) Conscious Light (Itself)".
- Thusness