Now, you answer my question.

Are thoughts frequencies or not?
Yea or nay.

plaetton:

Proof that consciousness and intelligence are not divine attributes, but are generated by mathematical thresholds of electrical activity, just as happens in the brains of living things.

That is seriouse o!

My friend Plaeton, i think you are taking this your thing too seriousely too far.

Cool down and contemplate what consciouseness is first befor you take that leap.

Seriousely this time, consciouse no be programming of a machine o!

Capturing in entirty what consciouseness is as a consciouse entity no be easy thing o !
We can only take an aspect at a time, it is super complex.

The curves are too tight and too many.
From living matter to self identity like identifying yourself in a mirror. Aba !

Even a cat and a dog etc that have came a long way and are in our form(mammal and living) when shown itself in a mirror 1000 times cant go round that curve of self identity let alone a machine.

plaetton:

I do not dwell in absolutes.

The answer is yes.
It is well within the realm of possibility.

What a leap !

It takes a certain level of
abstract Imagination to attain a level of 'self identity' for a start, which goes beyond the sense of sight.

Have you thought about that ?
Programming matter is something else.

What you are talking about is beyond frequency o, even our closes look alike as close as they come(ape) cannot identify itself.

Guy, cool down a bit na. Shooo!

you make me a man of faith to look faithless

Deep Sight:

Hmmm. So robots are self conscious? Or even conscious?

Ol boy think this one well wella wellest before you become dafter than the religious folk you so abhor.

Punchline. Men no wonda jayriginal sef dey bow for u.

truthislight:

That is seriouse o!

My friend Plaeton, i think you are taking this your thing too seriousely too far.

Cool down and contemplate what consciouseness is first befor you take that leap.

Seriousely this time, consciouse no be programming of a machine o!

Capturing in entirty what consciouseness is as a consciouse entity no be easy thing o !
We can only take an aspect at a time, it is super complex.

The curves are too tight and too many.
From living matter to self identity like identifying yourself in a mirror. Aba !

Even a cat and a dog etc that have came a long way and are in our form(mammal and living) when shown itself in a mirror 1000 times cant go round that curve of self identity let alone a machine.




What a leap !

It takes a certain level of
abstract Imagination to attain a level of 'self identity' for a start, which goes beyond the sense of sight.

Have you thought about that ?
Programming matter is something else.

What you are talking about is beyond frequency o, even our closes look alike as close as they come(ape) cannot identify itself.

Guy, cool down a bit na. Shooo!

you make me a man of faith to look faithless

My dear friend.
Read my posts carefully.

Never say impossible when it come to human imagination and innovation.
That past 200 yrs or so has clearly demonstrated that.

You guys are just behind in modern science, mainly because of the magical thinking that comes with religious beliefs.
The problem is that your minds are too suffused with religious bullshyt(excuse my language) to appreciate scientific thinking .

There is no mystery, there is no miracle. There is no divine.
Everything in the universe, even god, if at all it exists, fall under, and operate within the laws of physics.
Central to the understanding physics is understanding the universe in terms of energy oscillating on a diverse range of frequencies.

So every phenomenon can be understood and defined in terms of energy and frequencies.

Please watch the video links.

Please watch the video and tell me your final thoughts.

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-robots-become-human.htm#mkcpgn=snag1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GONfP0mXraI

Uyi Iredia:

Punchline. Men no wonda jayriginal sef dey bow for u.

Punchline for the ignorant.
Ignorance is indeed bliss.

plaetton:

I do not dwell in absolutes.

The answer is yes.
It is well within the realm of possibility.

Reyginus: Smh

My sentiments exactly.

plaetton:

My dear friend.
Read my posts carefully.

Never say impossible when it come to human imagination and innovation.
That past 200 yrs or so has clearly demonstrated that.

You guys are just behind in modern science, mainly because of the magical thinking that comes with religious beliefs.
The problem is that your minds are too suffused with religious bullshyt(excuse my language) to appreciate scientific thinking .

There is no mystery, there is no miracle. There is no divine.
Everything in the universe, even god, if at all it exists, fall under, and operate within the laws of physics.
Central to the understanding physics is understanding the universe in terms of energy oscillating on a diverse range of frequencies.

So every phenomenon can be understood and defined in terms of energy and frequencies.

Please watch the video links.

Please watch the video and tell me your final thoughts.

http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/brink/videos/brink-robots-become-human.htm#mkcpgn=snag1


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GONfP0mXraI

Plaeton, some people may belief in the existance of God, that does not translate to their lack of scientific knowledge and working of it or that they have low IQ's.

Isaac Newton for one did belief in God, that did not make him a slowpoke, so, stop directing/imputing your personal fears and sentiments to others if it is.

If your becoming an atheist is because of your fears of being considered unintelligent, well, such kind fears are not mutual, hence inconsiquential to some other people.

If you will be open minded, you will agree with me that though there has been lots of advancement in science, it has mostly been on inanimate things, but when it comes to the living things, human have not been able to do much other then manipulate the existing ones.
So, when you say that humans will make inanimate things to turn to living thing, that is a very big leap of none evidential faith, completly without precedence to warrant taking it as a possible plus no matter how long in the future you wish to project such possibilties, there are no evidence to support such.

From stem cell to test tube lab stuff, it is work based on already living things, bridging this divide between living things and nonliving things is what we dont have evidence for, contrary to what you wish to believe and project here.

So, your leap of faith is baseless.

Though computers can be programmed to performed certain intelligent functions, however, it still remains a 'nonliving thing'.

Please, take note of that ^.

^^^ Dont waste your time. Sometimes some people can make some statements that just show such startling and even perverted density and stupidity, that it becomes in turn genuinely foo.lish to begin to argue against such statements.

It would be like entering an assylum and undertaking a debate with a raving lunatic.

Someday or the other, everyone will experience life, and therefore learn.

There is no point forcing Further Maths on a 2 year old, especially when the 2 year old's issues should be resolved with the elementary arithmetic he well knows already, and is even arrogant about.

@Deepsight

I am shocked you have posted 3 or 4 times without contributing anything intelligent to the discussion, except taking cheap shots. I always look forward to having robust discussions with you.
But these days, you seem to have nothing to contribute than hit and run sniper shots.
C'mon man, stand up and debate like a man. Lol
The only thing I hear coming from you these days is "impossible". For a guy who calls himself Deepsight, your sights are very short, and getting shorter by the day.
For someone who waxes eloquently about infinity, your imagination is somewhat being retarded by the dogmatic beliefs that hold you hostage.

I not asking to agree with my viewpoints, but please, exercised some imaginative thinking and step out of your box.
There is a much bigger and fantastic universe outside your cocoon.

plaetton: @Deepsight

I am shocked you have posted 3 or 4 times without contributing anything intelligent to the discussion, except taking cheap shots. I always look forward to having robust discussions with you.
But these days, you seem to have nothing to contribute than hit and run sniper shots.
C'mon man, stand up and debate like a man. Lol
The only thing I hear coming from you these days is "impossible". For a guy who calls himself Deepsight, your sights are very short, and getting shorter by the day.
For someone who waxes eloquently about infinity, your imagination is somewhat being retarded by the dogmatic beliefs that hold you hostage.

I not asking to agree with my viewpoints, but please, exercised some imaginative thinking and step out of your box.
There is a much bigger and fantastic universe outside your cocoon.

No thanks.

I certainly will not make a fool of myself by debating this nonsensical proposition. I'll pass.

Edit. Too much said already.

@truthislight
First, I didn't make any reference to intelligence or IQ in my post. Scientific thinking doesn't necessarily require high intelligence or IQ, unless of course, you say so.

The indisputable fact is that Nigerians are far far too immersed in magical thinking , and far far too behind in scientific thinking.

Therefore, products of our system tend to display an irrational hostility to scientific ideas, even while, ironically, enjoying the products of scientific thinking..

Read my posts again.
The keywords of my posts are "Proof Of Concept" and " Possibility".

When dealing with little understood concepts, only a fool would yell " Impossible"

Deep Sight:

No thanks.

I certainly will not make a fool of myself by debating this nonsensical proposition. I'll pass.

Edit. Too much said already.

Good.
Then stop the childish behavior, shut up and let others continue the discussion.

plaetton:
Good.
Then stop the childish behavior, shut up and let others continue the discussion.

Ride on mate.

Uyi Iredia:

Punchline. Men no wonda jayriginal sef dey bow for u.

I wonder where you got this idea from.

jayriginal:

I wonder where you got this idea from.

You have praised Deep Sight on more than one occasion on different threads.

Uyi Iredia:

You have praised Deep Sight on more than one occasion on different threads.

Really? Lol I think you are mistaken, he only ever had caustic curses for me, but still and always a beloved friend, nonetheless... as is Plaetton.

plaetton:

Not what I had expected, but great answer.

That's because the boy(moi) is smart

So I guess I should have added to the questions whether a virus is sentient.
Is it?

If it's living, it sentient

plaetton:

My dear friend,
It is not a matter of whether this particular robot is fully conscious or not, or meets our criterias or not.
No.
It is about " proof of concept".

Consciousness entails this , entails that, and entails that.
Sure.
The question is about the possibility of an artificial construct having all the above attributes in the future.
And I can you that, you sir, are in no position to say what is scientifically or technologically possible today, or in the near or distant future.



In view of how far humanity has come in just over the past 200yrs, I would urge you , sir, to refrain from making absolute statements about what is possible and what is not possible.

More so, I find it particularly hilarious that people who engage in all sorts of magical thinking(religion) would turn around to make absolute statements about what is scientifically possible and what is not.
That is just laughable.
On what grounds do you make the absolute assertion that there is no such thing as artificial consciousness?

You statement would be a bit palatable if you had added the word "Yet" at the end.

Back in the early 1900s, the head of the U.S patent office recommended that the patent office be closed because , according to him , and I quote,

" Everything that needs to be invented has already been invented."

Can you see how wrong he was 100yrs ago?

If you are following developments in patent applications, you would realize that , technologically, we are still in the dark ages compared to what is in the future.

What you call consciousness, self-awareness, sentience, intelligence, etc are simply unique frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum.
Biological species reach these various stages when the electrical activity in their brains or neural networks reach a unique mathematical threshold of oscillation.

In other words, my friend, your thoughts can be hacked. The technology and the patents currently exists.

I dont know if you have bothered to notice that computers have tended to perform more complex task with the increase in processor speeds.
Have you?

Now, what is the fasted computing speed currently?
Now multiply that by , say, 100 fold.
Now, again, what is the maximum processing speed for a processor?
As afar as we know, infinity.

If computing power continues to increase exponentially for infinity, there would definitely reach a threshold point where it's frequency would attain the frequency threshold of thoughts, consciousness, and self-awareness.
That is almost as certain as the sun sun coming up tomorrow.

" To understand the Universe, you simply need to understand Frequency, all is Frequency" -- Nicholi Telsa

Boy oh boy!!! So you can assume to open your mind to possibilities, concepts and unknowns, yet you are so sure of the impossibility of God or the divine??

I have not gone astray in any way by what I said that "There is no such thing as artificial consciousness". I'm assuming your are trying to make a scientific argument here, so where is the proof of concept by which you quickly judged that a computer program was conscious? Where is the demonstration or scientifc theory that we can use to project or speculate into the future on the possibility of achieving artificial consciousness? You have not even one proof or testable theory to scientifically initiate life from non-life, yet you are already projecting..., based on what?? How is this science? At best this is fantasy and fiction. You may deride religious people all you want but you have just demonstrated the same attributes for which you deride them. You have no basis for this projection, what you have here is a belief system. And when I said: "There is no such thing as artificial consciousness", it was absolute and very correct in it's context. It is very obvious that I was referring the world we know at present, of course I couldn't have been making a statement for future possibilities or impossibilities. How you are able to filter-in or filter-out any futures from my statement is beyond me

So if life is frequency as you attempt to argue here, why is it that no one has been able to identify and isolate any particular frequency as "The life frequency or particle"?? It's not as if we are still searching for frequencies, are we?? Every physical entity is frequency and every physical entity/phenomenon is identifiable by it frequency(s). But life/consciousness on the other hand, though very evident through frequencies, yet not identifiable or isolateable, which would suggest that perhaps consciousness is not physical, Don't you think?? You can reel out the many attributes and evidences of life but no one has yet identified that unique entity that constitutes or emanates life. It is true that life/consciousness manifests physically as frequency but it is yet to be observed that frequency is life. Frequency has not been observed to originate consciousness, therefore it is absolutely wrong for anyone to continue to argue without evidence that consciousness is frequency. It's like saying: because I have legs to move about, therefore I am a leg. It doesn't make sense. A leg moving is evidence of somebody alive and using the leg to move about, but then separate the leg from the person and this leg is useless, without consciousness nor purpose, while the person who has been separated from his leg is still alive, conscious and continues his purpose. So makes no sense to say the frequency is live, as frequency cannot be conscious nor function on it's own, just as the leg cannot be conscious nor function on it's own.

^^^^ Thank you o.

I am only mildly surprised that you waste your energy to explain the glaringly obvious to a willfully deluded old man wallowing in absurd perversity.

Deep Sight: ^^^^ Thank you o.

I am only mildly surprised that you waste your energy to explain the glaringly obvious to a willfully deluded old man wallowing in absurd perversity.

Really man? This does not become you DS.

Anyway, make i just de observe. . .

Uyi Iredia:

You have praised Deep Sight on more than one occasion on different threads.

Ive praised you too. -----> https://www.nairaland.com/979106/favorite-atheists-theists-nairaland#11320857
So?

Deep Sight:

Really? Lol I think you are mistaken, he only ever had caustic curses for me, but still and always a beloved friend, nonetheless... as is Plaetton.

Haba, thats extreme na. We have had our well documented differences but thats as far as it goes. We'd probably get along famously off nairaland especially as we both have a tendency towards the black milk bottled by Arthur G.

One of these days I might just try that bottle of Guiness. A can in fact, much less assuming.

Mr Troll: Really man? This does not become you DS.

Anyway, make i just de observe. . .

Man, are you also seeing what I am seeing?
How have the mighty fallen?

Our man has fallen from Deepsight to SHORTSIGHT.

I have been lamenting for a while now.
Now I seriously believe that there must be a contagious brain disease slowly decimating our very reserves of thinkers.

@Okexyz

Once again,My response to your last post is;
He he he he.

It is just hilarious how you would expend sooo much energy to write against something for which you know absolutely nothing, zero.

That is the grandest of follies.
Where do they get you guys from?
You could saved yourself a whole lot of trouble if you had bothered to read my posts carefully and followed the links I provided earlier.

I need waste too much effort to educate you on an issue fir which you do not care to be educated on..

If you wish, you can do yourself a favor by picking up scientific journals to catch up with current trends in science and technology.

I think I get what @Plaetton is saying. He is saying that the creation of artificial consciousness MAY BE possible. That it hasnt been done yet is not a sign that it can never be done. Therefore he refutes any assertion of the impossibility of conscious computers and machines.
I think that is what @DeepSight missed while he was scoffing.
Now whether something has to be living to be conscious is moot. We have to define consciousness scientifically to be sure.
Being someone who has programmed artificial neural networks before, I can say there is nothing "special" about it. Notice how I said 'special'? It is just good at pattern recognition and generalisation and sometimes even completion.
That said, the possibilities are enormous. With advances in neuroscience and quatum computing, we could possibly start seeing conscious computer systems in the not so distance future. Till then, nobody can say for sure.
@Plaetton: it beats me why u dont believe there is God. Because ur beliefs in the possibilities of science are so fringe that they seem religious. Maybe u do believe in the possibilty of there being God but u think He must exist within the laws of physics and u eschew religious BS.

Someone should try reading Xenocide by Scott Orson Card, the same guy who wrote Ender's Game. It is actually the 3rd book in the Ender Series. That book gave me a whole new perspective on the possibilities of life and consciousness. It is fiction and it is a great read.

Uyi Iredia: One of these days I might just try that bottle of Guiness. A can in fact, much less assuming.

Oh you should!

PhenomenonVFX: I think I get what @Plaetton is saying. He is saying that the creation of artificial consciousness MAY BE possible. That it hasnt been done yet is not a sign that it can never be done. Therefore he refutes any assertion of the impossibility of conscious computers and machines.
I think that is what @DeepSight missed while he was scoffing.
Now whether something has to be living to be conscious is moot. We have to define consciousness scientifically to be sure.
Being someone who has programmed artificial neural networks before, I can say there is nothing "special" about it. Notice how I said 'special'? It is just good at pattern recognition and generalisation and sometimes even completion.
That said, the possibilities are enormous. With advances in neuroscience and quatum computing, we could possibly start seeing conscious computer systems in the not so distance future. Till then, nobody can say for sure.
@Plaetton: it beats me why u dont believe there is God. Because ur beliefs in the possibilities of science are so fringe that they seem religious. Maybe u do believe in the possibilty of there being God but u think He must exist within the laws of physics and u eschew religious BS.

Someone should try reading Xenocide by Scott Orson Card, the same guy who wrote Ender's Game. It is actually the 3rd book in the Ender Series. That book gave me a whole new perspective on the possibilities of life and consciousness. It is fiction and it is a great read.

Let me even indulge you for a second.

Answer me this simple question.

Do you suppose a machine may sommeday instinctively ponder the question "what am I?"

plaetton:
Man, are you also seeing what I am seeing?
How have the mighty fallen?

Our man has fallen from Deepsight to SHORTSIGHT.

I have been lamenting for a while now.
Now I seriously believe that there must be a contagious brain disease slowly decimating our very reserves of thinkers.

Nonsense. Ad hominems can be your only refuge in this matter.

You don't even have the slightest appreciation of what consciousness is, much less self consciousness.

No doubt you will very soon contend that robots may be built which will be capable of emotions such as fear, love, hatred, anger and jealousy.

And worse, in doing so you will hopelessly conflate the simulation of actions portraying these emotions with the actual phenomenon of experiencing those emotions.

Just as hopelessly s.illy as one who makes the elementary mistake of thinking that a programmed Video Camera has sight, or sees anything.

Pitiful, just pitiful.

Mr Troll: Really man? This does not become you DS.

Anyway, make i just de observe. . .

What? The truth doesnt become me?

Commot dia joor

jayriginal:

Ive praised you too. -----> https://www.nairaland.com/979106/favorite-atheists-theists-nairaland#11320857
So?





Haba, thats extreme na. We have had our well documented differences but thats as far as it goes. We'd probably get along famously off nairaland especially as we both have a tendency towards the black milk bottled by Arthur G.

In fact I am just settling down to a nice bottle with some peppersoup....

Deep Sight:

Let me even indulge you for a second.

Answer me this simple question.

Do you suppose a machine may sommeday instinctively ponder the question "what am I?"

And in anwsering this question, please do make the elementary distinction between pre programmed simulated effects and actual self thought.

I might give you an example.

Computers play chess. Do the computers engage in thought, in so doing. Question.