OK this is bordering in philosophy, so I might post something similair in the philosophy section, but this will deal more with the scientific side.

How would one program a computer to:
(1) be self-aware
(2) come to a "best possible" solution when no perfect solution is findable
(3) has a desire to learn
(4) can feel emotion
(5) sends its thoughts through logical loops which consider previous memories and thoughts
(6) can formulate opinions based on facts

No. That would be far more complicated.

http://www.paulgraham.com/progbot.html

It would be far easier and less complicated to use bottom-up programming and give it the ability to program itself, however that could be done. Do our experiences not program us/do we not use our experiences to program ourselves (unconsciously)?

I was under the impression that that's what heuristics were: the ideas of power bases et al (whatever the heck they are) compressed/simplified into a few (or a lot of) rules that work fairly well under most situations.

Yes, those are heuristics, and computers have a very hard time with them because it's very hard to formulate them analytically (often because we don't know what the 'simple rules' are).

couldn't we set up a genetic algorithm so that instead of having a base formula, you have a limitation to the max and min responses (forget the mathmatical theory that its called, but basically f= x whatever with limit of + or 1 7 or something like that), and technically have no formula to go from the question to the answer?

guess that a partial chaos theory type thing might achieve parts of the individuality.

computers started with an optional base 10 instead of a base 2 computation. The problem with the base 10 was that the old technology at the time was too hard to figure determine whether the electricity was not on or off. I think the standard 2 base would not allow for the 'black and white' issues that it would have to deal with.

society also dictates specific learned responses to certain stimuli...

A sine wave or Walsh wave could do that, but what would you do with such a function?


My guess, too. Lots of 'individuality' in computer simulated responses can be generated with a small ideosyncratic bias in a random pattern added to whatever you're doing.


Yup. and there's so much of that, in fact, that it's not feasible to hardcode a computer with that information, so any AI we build will likely have to be educated.

intelligence =/= consciousness



but that is exactly what intelligence is - what they are not is *conscious*.





problem of output v actual consciousness - we *cannot know* others actual consciousness, we can only assume that others *are* conscious. This is a meta problem of being, and not just restricted to AC study. However despite this necessary caveat, it also to some degree goes without saying that a program that merely responds 'correctly' v one that analyses with volition, is inferior with respects to AC.



actually, yes they are - check out 'IQ tests' - on many basic supposedly IQ tests a computer will find the answer well before any human could (sudoku, logic problems etc).



indeed - it takes a consciousness to put meaning into data - current programs are merely data processing - they cannot put meaning (Quality? ;)) into items. Is that emotion?



please define "consciousness".

Oh, such joy :lol: :lol: :lol: