Nah, humans aren't capable of creating thinking, feeling organisms.

Best we can do is create something that regurgitates content without ever creating something new.

You may try to create something to be human but it won't ever be human cuz what makes you you cannot be explained or program

Yeah, I fully believe it's possible. I only see hurdles in the way of that future.

Of course

There is nothing special about an organic brain that cannot be replicated by a sufficiently advanced synthetic one.

Emotions, Desires, Thoughts, Fears are all a result of internal and external 'programming', either in the form of your biology (genetics/hormonal levels) or your learning.

If you make a program that can learn new things, you are already on par with most organic life. If you make a program that can rationalise a decision, you've surpassed all non-sentient life. If you make a robot that can do all that and have laser eyes, we have no need for meatbags anymore.

You're just waiting for someone to create your new brother

Quote from: ❗️Pip❗️ on May 26, 2016, 11:42:47 AM

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on May 26, 2016, 11:41:14 AM

Of course

There is nothing special about an organic brain that cannot be replicated by a sufficiently advanced synthetic one.

Emotions, Desires, Thoughts, Fears are all a result of internal and external 'programming', either in the form of your biology (genetics/hormonal levels) or your learning.

If you make a program that can learn new things, you are already on par with most organic life. If you make a program that can rationalise a decision, you've surpassed all non-sentient life. If you make a robot that can do all that and have laser eyes, we have no need for meatbags anymore.

You're just waiting for someone to create your new brother

I already have four, I'd rather have a robotic son

How do neurons communicate? Some sources say through neurotransmitters being sent and picked up between neurons, but then there's the electric-impulses-stuff. Can you clear this up for me?

Quote from: Desty on May 26, 2016, 11:52:03 AM

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on May 26, 2016, 11:47:30 AM

Quote from: ❗️Pip❗️ on May 26, 2016, 11:42:47 AM

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on May 26, 2016, 11:41:14 AM

Of course

There is nothing special about an organic brain that cannot be replicated by a sufficiently advanced synthetic one.

Emotions, Desires, Thoughts, Fears are all a result of internal and external 'programming', either in the form of your biology (genetics/hormonal levels) or your learning.

If you make a program that can learn new things, you are already on par with most organic life. If you make a program that can rationalise a decision, you've surpassed all non-sentient life. If you make a robot that can do all that and have laser eyes, we have no need for meatbags anymore.

You're just waiting for someone to create your new brother

I already have four, I'd rather have a robotic son

How do neurons communicate? Some sources say through neurotransmitters being sent and picked up between neurons, but then there's the electric-impulses-stuff. Can you clear this up for me?

Yeah, we've been doing this in a lot of detail recently.

So take a dopaminergic neuron for example


You have the presynaptic nerve and the post synaptic nerve, the bit between the two nerve endings is the synaptic gap. When an action potential reaches the presynaptic nerve, this triggers the release of neurotransmitters like Dopamine into the synaptic gap. The dopamine then binds to the receptors on the post-synaptic nerve and if sufficient dopamine are bound to it then this generates a new action potential in the second neuron.

The action potential is the electrical bit and the dopamine in the neurotransmitter. The electrical charge for the action potential comes from the transfer of energy from ionized molecules (iirc) like Sodium Na+ or Potassium K+ which is why deficiency of those two is particularly bad for a person's neurological health.

Hope that makes sense.

So, our post-synaptic neurons have a default setting, like Oxytocin, and the "action potential" stimulates this setting? The neurotransmitter is the binding factor that determines the capability of that neuron. The action potential then is an action or smell. Once we do something or hear something for the first time action potential occurs and a neurotransmitter is selected by one cell to bind with another cell (among a cluster of other cells). When we perform the action, or hear the same sound again the eletrical impulses are sent through those neurons again, and the neurotransmitter's effect happens without the need of any configurations since the setting is already set. Serotonin won't be able to pass through this cell unless the simulation of it forces a new setting to be added.


^that's my understanding of what you said and then some

Nah, humans aren't capable of creating thinking, feeling organisms.

you might want to look up this thing called "sexual reproduction"

No, they can't.

How do you know?

Quote from: Winy on May 26, 2016, 12:36:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 26, 2016, 12:30:34 PM

No, they can't.

How do you know?

Same way I know that the radio in my dad's car isn't actually saying "goodbye" to me when I shut it off.

That's a very poor comparison.

Quote from: Winy on May 26, 2016, 12:39:20 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 26, 2016, 12:38:57 PM

Quote from: Winy on May 26, 2016, 12:36:48 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 26, 2016, 12:30:34 PM

No, they can't.

How do you know?

Same way I know that the radio in my dad's car isn't actually saying "goodbye" to me when I shut it off.

That's a very poor comparison.

No, it isn't.

It definitely is, actually. What is the difference between an organism that's made out of flesh and bone, and one that is functionally similar, but made out of metal and other "Mechanical" materials? There's nothing suggesting a conscious organism couldn't be made out of something else, or that such a being couldn't be made by humans if we were technologically advanced enough.

yeah

One has a brain with neurons.

How does this help your position? Theoretically, an advanced civilization could replicate all of the properties that constitutes a neuron, and these could be used in a synthetic brain to allow for something to gain consciousness. Nature is random, and uncoordinated, yet was able to make all of these incredibly complicated biological structures given enough time. An actual, focused effort to replicate these sorts of things would arguably be capable of doing so with much greater ease.

Except for every single time we've ever created in an attempt to replicate conscious sentient behavior.

Which is why I have said that it's a possibility when a civilization become advanced enough.

Robots can ONLY be as intelligent as the person making it. A ball can never bounce higher than the point you dropped it at.

Those two statements are not analogous whatsoever, I'd imagine Einstein was smarter than his parents. The end result of two people creating something ended up being smarter than both of them. AI could function similarly, and likely will.

On top of what I just said, claiming that a specific goal is impossible simply because previous results have failed is incredibly short-sighted. People claimed we'd never fly, and now commercial airlines are a thing. That was, like, slightly over 100 years ago.

Nature is random, and uncoordinated

Wrong. It's actually the most unrandom and coordinated system we've ever observed. Everything operates exactly by Newton's laws of motion, and you can't get much less random than that.

An actual, focused effort to replicate these sorts of things would arguably be capable of doing so with much greater ease.

This is fallacious because you're assuming that "life" hasn't already existed for billions and billions of years. When life began, it was EXTRAORDINARILY simple. We're talking single-cell organisms here.

We can't even create something as simple as a single-celled organism. How are we going to make something as complex as a sentient robot?

Those two statements are not analogous whatsoever, I'd imagine Einstein was smarter than his parents.

If you're going to call my comparisons shit, when they're actually brilliant, you're not allowed to make shit comparisons yourself. This is just stupid. You can't compare Einstein's education with his parents, because his parents didn't have the same education. Duh. That's not even remotely a fair comparison.

edit:
man i really fucked up the quotes on this post

On top of what I just said, claiming that a specific goal is impossible simply because previous results have failed is incredibly short-sighted. People claimed we'd never fly, and now commercial airlines are a thing. That was, like, slightly over 100 years ago.

But it's not as complex as life.

And again--who's to say we failed? Who's to say my radio ISN'T saying goodbye to me? By your logic, I have no reason not to believe that my radio isn't saying goodbye to me when I turn it off. Because you see no distinction between neurons and mechanical transmitters.