what is awareness?

I know the answer to this question, but most people dont as evidenced by the AI threads lately asking what makes a machine sentient. So try and answer the question both in regards to man and machine, because before I can show you where you are wrong you have to say what it is that is wrong.

This is a trap thread, and not the deviant sexy kind.

>>1
Prove that you have sentience.

>>2
The deviant kind of traps is absolutely disgusting. Go choke on Guido van Rossum's cock.

OMEGLE TURING TEST

  for x in ["hey","asl?","Your partner has disconnected."]
    print(x)
    sleep(random(2,5))

>>3
Prove that you have sentience.
tell me what sentience is and then I will prove it

>>6
sentience is a machine or persons facility to reason that [spoilers]you are a huge faggot[/spoilers]

>>1
- the ability to learn new things, to recognize patterns and to adapt to new situations
- the ability to solve new problems
- the ability to recognize that you are a huge faggot

Awareness of self is not necessary as a separate condition since the first condition implies the ability to learn about one's existence

>>8
first (semi)serious answer.

Its very interesting that there is so much discussion about human AI in computers yet avoid the most basic question as to define what is human awareness

>>9
because you're an obvious troll

>>9
Okay, then you define it.

>>10
ok, fine, its obvious no one is going to answer this question other than >>8 so I will now explain to you what human awareness is: its memory, thats all it is, just memories. We are constantly recieving sensory input which we confuse with awareness. Our senses are so vivid that we ascribe 'feelings' to them. But this is not awareness, our brain is running on a feedback loop of memory in conjunction with what we are sensing. But if you remove all the sensory input by putting the body in a state of sensory deprivation, you will notice that we are only left with memories. This is why sensory deprivation is a form of torture, because our minds are only running on a feeble memory loop. Without sensory input the body cant function and will stop functioning. So there is no such thing as awareness, there are only memories on which the brain considers itself alive. There is nothing special about this memory, its quite mechanical. Our memory is so strong that every living moment is being recorded, this is proven where under hypnosis a person can recall every detail of every moment of their life. This is the power of the brain, its incredible bandwidth of memory.
the ability to learn new things, to recognize patterns and to adapt to new situations, the ability to solve new problems
this is a meaningless distinction, Admittedly the mechanics of visual recognition is complex, the ability to remember and process 2 dimensional visual input and ascribe 3 dimensional meaning is something that is hardwired into the animal brain. But much of this 'learned' behaviour is just the bodies immediate reaction to sensory input that is not present in non sensory memory

Mentifex needs to get in this thread to school you lot.

>>12

So chua's circuit is aware?

>>12
this is proven where under hypnosis a person can recall every detail of every moment of their life.
Pseudoscientific bullshit, you might as well use eidetic memory as a ``proof'' now.

>>15
B-b-but quantum magick and stardust powder! And words can have an action at a distance!

>>15
Pseudoscientific bullshit, you might as well use eidetic memory as a ``proof'' now.
what is thinking? (stop and think about it, he he), thinking consists of two things, making decisions based on sensory memory or "self talk". Try and think about something without using memory based on sensory stimulus or verbal conversation, you cant, because thats all there is. You dont need photographic memory in order to think, but you do need audio/visual/tactical memory. The memory humans have is exactly like the memory you could store of video on a computer. There is nothing different about our input to that of a computer. The computer only lacks sophistication to interpret it as we do

>>16
And words can have an action at a distance!
If only I could hate you to death.

Nobody's going to argue that memory is important for the brain to function correctly but its presumptuous to say this is the origin of awareness. Continuous input into the brain to be comfortable is a side effect from the body being designed with negative feedback regulation on sensory amplification. Some parts of this system is fully neurological but other parts, such as the ears are mechano-acoustic negative feedback filters. The lack of distinctive familiar forms such as sounds and images causes a weak signal to noise ratio, causing the sensory system to boost the noise. The boosted noise is a rich spectrum that pattern matches to a lot of things, causing hallucinations, the same thing happens when you hear the occasional voice in the shower.

Now the thing that pays the bills for continued existence for living things is natural selection in the end, self-preservation should be high up in brain prerequisites, how self-preservation affects the executive functions which operates on working memory should be considered.

>>1
Define ``Awareness.''

>>20
(define awareness "``Awareness''")

>>20
(define |``Awareness''| "not you")

It's a gestalt. The implementation is irrelevant, so a thinking computer can just as easily develop a subjective conscious experience.

I'd expect the first few "AI"s to be virtual copies of deceased people where every neuron's tiniest interactions are being simulated, followed by major strides in the field as the actual underlying rules of consciousness are discovered and implemented in a much more efficient, algorithmic fashion.

>>23
There will never be an AGI.
Humans evolved for trillions of years, therefore one cannot simply make a computer program to be able to solve problems n shit.
You are a fag.
You don't understand conscious experience.

>>23
I'd expect the first few "AI"s to be virtual copies of deceased people where every neuron's tiniest interactions are being simulated, followed by major strides in the field as the actual underlying rules of consciousness are discovered and implemented in a much more efficient, algorithmic fashion.
I think it will be the other way around; way before we achieve the amount of computational resources to chemically simulate a brain, some team of Sußmen will come up with a working model that can achieve sentience as described in >>8.

>>24
Humans evolved for trillions of years, therefore one cannot simply make a computer program to be able to solve problems n shit.
[citation needed, dipshit]

>> 25
www.wikipedia.com/Artificatial_ontollogy.html

>>24
Evolution is not linear, you know?

>>27
it's not real, either, but that's the kind of liberal propaganda some of us have to put up with. until we get a REAL president in office, that is.

>>28
Assfucker.  Tsk.

>>27
Yes it is. (Or punctuated-linear.) The probability that creatures like humans evolve is astronomically low. Therefore, the trillions of billions of years are needed to get something like human intelligence.

But that's just about making programs from scratch. It is possible someday we will hook up our brains to machines, and become cyborgs, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Why not? Because the economy is a major stumbling block. If it does not sell, it simply dies out. Such is our society.

If awareness is defined in terms of behavior, then a system that conforms to that behavior can be said to be aware.
This can be applied to systems that don't meet anyones intuitive idea of what awareness means - chat bots and the like.
So a better model of awareness is as something implicit to the system, such as the existence of certain processes being applied to the information it receives.
The output of a system will never be enough to judge if it's aware or not, as other processes that don't signify awareness could generate the same output.
Every single explanation as to why a conscious system could never be manufactured relies on magic and superstition as an axiom, or vague assumptions about "meaning" that amount to the same thing.
There is only one axiom that should be taken as a given - The Axiom of OP's Faggotry

incoming dubz

GOTTA CATCH EM ALL
DUBZEMON