I'm not sure that will ever be possible.
Consciousness produces logic as a tool to use. Logic does not produce consciousness.
Computers, by definition, are pure logic and rules. You can use logic to mimic consciousness, but nothing more.
Consciousness produces logic as a tool to use. Logic does not produce consciousness.
Computers, by definition, are pure logic and rules. You can use logic to mimic consciousness, but nothing more.
Considering we have no falsifiable theory about what does produce consciousness, I don't see how you could possibly claim this.
You can't prove that you are conscious, nor can anybody else. I can perceive my own consciousness but I can't rigorously explain it. We have no way of determining if this alleged "consciousness" is a spectrum or binary. We can't test which life-forms are conscious and which are not. We can observe behaviors in animals that seem to imply consciousness, but is a dog conscious, or an insect, or an amoeba? We don't know.
And furthermore, if you believe in evolution, you have to believe that there was no consciousness and then consciousness at some point was created where there was none before. If logic doesn't produce consciousness, what does produce it? And whatever produced it in cellular tissue millions of years ago, who's to say we couldn't likewise produce it in a die of silicon, which like our brains is highly electrical?
Actually, you don't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
There are a lot of complex and emergent systems that demonstrate this property of following simple rules but exhibiting complex behaviors. Conway's game of life, rule 110 in basic cellular automata, how ants work together, fireflies blink in synchrony without global communication are all examples.
And while none of these demonstrate that computers can produce consciousness, they give a hint that computers may be able to do so, despite it following rules to the T.
If our brains can produce consciousness there is no physical reason we know of why a computer can't be conscious. How do you know if everyone around you is conscious? You just assume they are, because you are. In reality you have no way of telling.
The interesting thing about this post is that the robot believes it is human, because it believes it is conscious. If it acts in a way that we recognise as conscious and tell us it is, at this point we have just as much evidence for believing the robot is conscious as we do for every human.
What do Expertise, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) and the advise to go for a walk or sleep on a problem have (or downplay) in common?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet#Implications_of_...
And AFAIK, we don't even know if it's computable.
I find your superstition disturbing.
This statement is not proved (and maybe not provable at all, not to mention probably untrue).
Also, have you considered the possibility a THIRD factor besides logic/consciousness (like information complexity, feedback loops etc) to produce BOTH consciousness and logic?
Computers, by definition, are pure logic and rules. You can use logic to mimic consciousness, but nothing more.
Who proved that, when and how? This is just a circular (vicious) argument, especially as denoted by the "by definition" part.