Do you think there will ever be a machine that will feel like human beings and be more intelligent than human beings? – Georgios Ardavanis (Ph.D.)

Delivering The Highest Quality Fabrics

Conscious machines may be fundamentally tied to the notion that they will eventually defeat humans. To surpass humans would be to replicate, attain, and reach critical human characteristics, such as high-level cognition linked to conscious perception. Can, however, computers and people be compared? Can machines have consciousness? Can computers surpass human abilities? These questions are paradoxical and debatable, especially in light of the numerous underlying presumptions and errors in our understanding of the brain. In this regard, it is essential to investigate these presumptions before suggesting how machines may mimic the precise information processing of brains. In order to better understand the relationship between conscious behavior and a subset of human talents, this approach will first investigate a prototype theory of consciousness before classifying robots using this framework. The paradoxical result of this research will be that attempting to create conscious machines that can outperform people implies that computers would never entirely surpass human capabilities or that if they did, the machine would no longer be deemed to be a computer.

For many years, philosophers and scientists have debated the nature of the brain and how it relates to the mind on the basis of an inherent dualism that is commonly referred to as the mind-body problem. Although arguments can take many forms, most can be boiled down to one particular dualist or non-dualist viewpoint. When the question is framed as whether it is possible to create computers that may mimic some human qualities like emotion, subjective experiences, or even consciousness, the significance of these disputes becomes much more pertinent. The issue is made worse when some scientists assert that a new generation of computers, machines, and robots in the future will also surpass human capabilities. I believe these assertions are founded on misunderstandings and the reductionism of the most pressing contemporary concerns. However, the concept is not abandoned here and is stated differently to demonstrate its paradoxical outcomes while attempting to avoid reductionism. For instance, the notion of approaching and surpassing human capabilities entails familiarity with a variety of distinguishing human traits and behaviours, such as intelligence, language, abstract thought, the ability to create art and music, emotions, and physical prowess. This straightforward concept raises some important problems. First, the promises made about new futuristic robots do not specify this set of characteristics; they are unconcerned with the significance of what it means to be a human, the requirements for creating conscious machines, or its ramifications. Furthermore, they adopt a materialist perspective on these distinctions (i.e., that they result from the physical, repeatable interactions of matter) without addressing the most fundamental issues with regard to the nature of the case. Thirdly, they need to explain how the idea of computing, which they use as a foundation for creating robots that would surpass humans and develop consciousness, may give rise to subjective experiences or emotions. In other words, these viewpoints do not explain the computational principles that either affirm or contradict the notion of brilliant machines. Final point: Even some neuroscientific techniques don’t seem to be able to provide us with any information about basic computing devices like microprocessors, leading futurists to assume that reverse engineering is the best method for dealing with these engineering challenges. Actually, it is conceivable to conclude that either neurons do not function as computers or that they do not function as computers, or that all of our knowledge about cells and neurons based on these procedures is incorrect if neuroscience methods cannot deduce valuable information from microprocessors. Reverse engineering is disregarded in the first choice as a practical tool for understanding the brain. In contrast, results in neuroscience relating to mechanical and computational interpretation are ignored in the second option. Before claiming that specific computers will match or even surpass human skills, it is still required to concentrate on numerous intermediate and fundamental steps.


Georgios Ardavanis – 14/04/2023

Tags :
Share This :

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *