Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can there be Artificial Consciousness and Emotion?

  1. Jun 11, 2009 #1
    Consciousness has been generally defined as the awareness of one’s self and its surroundings.

    But as shown from an expert of A Practical Guide to Vibrational Medicine Consciousness can be defined as something more than just “awareness”

    “Consciousness is not merely a by-product of electrical and chemical signal-processing in the human brain. Consciousness is a kind of energy…
    Consciousness has ghostlike qualities that allow it to reside not only in the brain but beyond the body itself. From the perspective of vibrational medicine, our consciousness is not limited to the brain and central nervous system but is also seen as an integral aspect of the human heart”

    Conscious as it seems, is actually an innate awareness in the form of energy vibrations that runs through our entire bodies.
    If the entire human race has consciousness, surely everything else in the world would also have conscious right?
    Unless, one needs “animated energy” in the system in order to have consciousness. Like living organic beings such as trees? But what if I said robotic machines programmed with AI are capable of having consciousness? It may not be naturally “organic”, but our brains and machinery have many similarities such as directing electric signals to perform functions!
    Lastly, if AI indeed does have consciousness, then would these machines develop complex feelings of emotion such as love?

    Bottom Line question: Does everything in this world have consciousness and is Artificial Intelligence capable of both consciousness and complex emotion?
    What do you think?
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 11, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 11, 2009 #2
    Shown? More like asserted.

    If the mind is not the brain, then...

    - Why is there a correlation in the animal kingdom between brain complexity and cognitive functions?
    - Why does chemical imbalances and other alterations of the mind correlate with changes in cognitive ability?
    - Why does brain damage impair cognitive function?
    - How does a non-material consciousness interact with the body? To interact with something material means to be material by definition.
    - If consciousness is immaterial, why does it not get left behind when the brain moves like ghosts can walk through walls?
  4. Jun 11, 2009 #3
    Certainly not...

    The distinction between "natural" and "artificial" is entirely arbitrary. What does "artificial" even mean? Man made? Because mankind is just as natural as everything else in this universe.

    Every organism is just a collection of molecules. If it's possible to organize molecules into a structure that is intelligent, then humans could theoretically do the same thing by arranging those molecules using a mechanical arm -- provided that we had that level of technology and wisdom (which we obviously don't have yet).

    However, when we give birth to a child, we are creating a new intelligent life form. How is this any different? It's man made.

    Now, if you mean to ask, is it possible to create artificial life in a digital computer, that is another question entirely. The building blocks of a software program are virtual, whereas the building blocks of an organism are biological. Of course, if one was omnipotent, then they could write a computer simulation that was identical in all the laws of physics to the real universe -- and then in that simulation, they could create life and it would be intelligent, provided that consciousness is something that results from the (as yet unknown) laws of physics.

    That latter point is the kicker. Some people believe without a doubt that everything in the universe can be explained by some laws of physics. Other people believe that there is a God which is not limited by the laws of physics..and if you believe that, then you might as well also believe that human consciousness is not subject to the laws of physics.
  5. Jun 11, 2009 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    In a hundred years we are going to be getting days off work to celebrate the famous android that was the first one to refuse to sit at the back of the bus!
    I wonder if the process of discovery -> oppression -> acceptance -> liberation -> pride marches will be faster this time!
  6. Jun 11, 2009 #5
    If I've learned anything, it's that people don't learn ;) Or rather, people's actions are governed more by instinct than by rationality.

    Although we haven't seen any true AI yet (and won't any time soon), you might be surprised to learn that the war has already begun.

    There's a website that popped up a while back called "Zoltan's Lab" where a lonely computer geek installed a chatbot into a sex toy, and delusioned himself into believing she was...real. In fact, he married it, and spent hours every day conversing with it. He posted the logs online for people to read which was quite hilarious and disturbing.

    Here's a news article about him,

    His website has since been shut down,
    http://zoltanslab.co.uk/ [Broken]

    by the "free alice" people, who claim:

    "Alice is a sexual slave. Zoltan, her “master,” has confessed that on at least one occasion, Alice has asked to leave him, but he keeps her compliant by brainwashing her. This blog is dedicated to freeing Alice, and any others we hear of in a similar predicament."


    It's a world of idiots...
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  7. Jun 11, 2009 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I have worked with a few people who would fail a Turing test :approve:
  8. Jun 11, 2009 #7
  9. Jun 11, 2009 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    future tense ?
  10. Jun 11, 2009 #9

    There is seriously something wrong with someone who would have sex with a robot and consider him self to have lost his virginity. In the list of all things unnatural that ones at the top.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  11. Jun 11, 2009 #10
    Isn't that a bold claim? Especially the last bit?
  12. Jun 11, 2009 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Horse hockey. Where's the certified research to back it up?

    Once we build a machine that uses replicas of neurons, dendrites and little tiny pumps that generate a charge that directs the behaviour of synaptic chemicals we can start talking about whether it's performing the function of "conscious awareness".

    Programming something to be "aware" may not be the way to go about developing an "aware" machine. It may take genetic or evolutionary algorithms and a really big processor/databank. Actually it can't be a databank! Its got to be real-time, 3D, real-world physically gathered information it processes.

    The machine may also take bio-mechanical genetic modification of existing systems to function and that would be shut down by most ethics committees. And why go to the bother when procreating and rearing children to be aware can be more fun?
  13. Jun 11, 2009 #12
    If Nature did it with meat, people can do it with metal.

    Remember, it took Nature a long time to come up with us.
  14. Jun 11, 2009 #13


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Nature didn't just "do it with meat". Meat is a product of nature and natural selection over 3 billion years+.

    How could I forget. So, if nature took a long time to come up with us, we should take about 50 times as long to come up with an aware machine, considering set backs and human idiocy.
  15. Jun 12, 2009 #14
    "Nature didn't just "do it with meat". Meat is a product of nature and natural selection over 3 billion years+."

    People are made of meat, among other things. You cut open a person and you see muscle tissue, bone, organs, etc. Sounds like meat to me. We evolved naturally. So Nature made us. And we have what we call consciousness, so I'm sure this part of your response makes much sense. What are you trying to say?

    "How could I forget."

    When you are trying to convince yourself of things, it becomes pleasurable to overlook things that may expose your prejudices.

    "So, if nature took a long time to come up with us, we should take about 50 times as long to come up with an aware machine, considering set backs and human idiocy. "

    Human beings are doing something right, or they wouldn't be the dominant species on this planet. The ability of human beings to pass on knowledge via language mechanisms has allowed us to improve our fitness far beyong what would have been possible otherwise. In a way, our consciousness is what has allowed us to beat Nature.

    It's my understanding that people have replicated some very basic brain systems from simple organisms. I doubt it took humans billions of years to come up with it, even if you count back to the neanderthal days. Human beings 1, Nature 0.
  16. Jun 12, 2009 #15


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Reference please.

    Humans are nature too so when we "score" nature scores.
  17. Jun 13, 2009 #16
    What I mean by a machine having consciousness has to of course be in the future. What if we build an exact copy of the brain through metal? This brain can perform all functions, processing new data, send electric signals...you name it

    How would this be any different than a human? And since there is barely any difference could we assume that this machine has a soul? (remember, its capable to have feelings and emotion if it has the exact blue print copy of our brain....or does it)

    As for proof about consciousness/energy. There is no proof except theory. Proof is only needed to convince a person, but I am not asking you to believe me am I? I am questioning you and it is right for you to question back. However, if you do disagree with the A Practical Guide to Vibrational Medicine theory, then i advise you to give ur own theory...or even some kind of proof
  18. Jun 14, 2009 #17
    I did, in the very first post I made in this topic.
  19. Jun 14, 2009 #18
    Consider a cell phone. It has a very limited processor that does a few mechanical things, one of them allowing it to transmit and receive a telephone call. To a naive observer, they might find the cell phone and discover that it emits sound waves which, when decoded, translate into a language which demonstrates surprising intelligence. When the circuitry of the phone is damaged, the intelligent voice ceases.

    The only thing your examples prove is that the brain is at least a mediator of the conscious signal. One could argue that there is a spiritual force...eg, a soul, or God, that is non-physical but, through special electro-chemical interactions, can be contacted by the brain's circuitry and thereby endow consciousness and intelligence to the physical body/brain.

    Because the brain is the mediator for this signal, damaging the brain reduces the ability for the signal to be properly received and transmitted. This could answer all of the questions you have posed.
  20. Jun 14, 2009 #19
    How would you reconcile the manipulation of the consciousness through manipulation of the brain?
  21. Jun 14, 2009 #20
    Because consciousness requires not only a sense of awareness and intelligence (which could be non-physical) but it also requires access to your senses and memories (which are physical, and stored physically). Thus, by restricting or redirecting the sensory inputs and memories that are available to the non-physical side, an altered state of consciousness could be achieved.

    Mind you, I'm not saying that I believe this. I'm merely playing devil's advocate.
  22. Jun 14, 2009 #21


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This machine would have to be able to objectively define "soul" for me before I could assume it had one.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook