Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody We are looking for complicated solutions when nature already provides us with simple answers. Life is defined as the emergence of something more than the sum of its parts. The science of emergence is trying to put together what conventional science took apart in reductionism. We cannot learn how something functions by just looking at its components. The whole, the sum of its parts assumes largely unpredictable behavior which will be again subjected to competition with other entities. Like gravity, parts are attracted to each other to form communities that protect the single unit to create yet another form with unexpected consequences
If we assume the theory of evolution to be correct (except Kansas), then consciousness was developed over millions of years as a result of increasing interactions between human animals. Language being an important part, paved the way to recognize the self, separate and distinct within nature.
So, let me turn around the question:
Instead of me explaining why I belief in a continuation of the consciousness to artificial intelligence, let me ask you why you deem it impossible? The brain, being another computer self assembled over eons of exposure to increasing complexity. Why do you deny the emergence of self recognition if, as I indicated above, it is dependant on an exponantial increase in interactions? |
computers are not self-actuating. In other words, they do not turn themselves on. Life forms are however self-actuating. This is the fundamental irreconcilable difference.