What makes a mind, hardware or software? Are sufficiently complex algorithms alive?

What makes a mind, hardware or software? Are sufficiently complex algorithms alive?

Chemistry.

A mind is the hardware, the conciseness is software, a sufficiently complex algorithm is "sentient" but is only alive if it is functioning with hardware.

electricity and chemicals. one could argue the soul plays a part in consciousness. one could also argue consciousness IS the soul.

If that algorithm is deleted and rewritten somewhere else, just like human teleportation, the teleported human would be exactly like the first one but would he feel like he actually traveled or he is just dead and the teleported one will tell you he felt that way? maybe it's because your conciousness is somehow predictable by the laws in the universe and can be duplicated.

Since you can't define how he would be telported, your question is invalid.
and you are fucking retarded

I mean theoretically, if the state of all particles is the same is physically the same object

Hardware.

No. See Searle's 'Chinese room'-argument.

Let's say all iphones are made identically, to the tiniest particle.

Are all iphones the same iphone?

(the answer is no)

The answer to your previous question would depend on how teleportation works, since it doesn't exist (yet?) you can't answer.

So either Searle is wrong or our concioussness is an ilusion ?

What i mean is if the iphone is sufficiently complex to exhibit councioussness as we know it, when changing it's memory to another iphone would he feel like it was actually transfered, or the trasnfered one would tell you he felt it but the original one is "dead"?

>What makes a mind, hardware or software?
Both (I guess DNA could be considered "software")

>Are sufficiently complex algorithms alive?
Intelligent doesn't mean alive.

No. Searle's argument is that a black box being able to produce correct answers is not evidence of it actually understanding what it is doing. It might just be blind force, set up intelligently by someone else.

Deep Blue did not understand what it was doing when it beat Gary Kasparov at chess. It had no feelings either way, win or lose, it did not deliberate moves as we understand it, it just ran its course, the way it was set up to do it. Sort of like an ultra-sophisticated Rube-Goldberg machine.

So we use alive to describe things that react to their stimuli and interact with the environment but we don't actually have a definition, we don't even know how our brains work so maybe we aren't alive and it is just another natural process like planet or star formation

but what is understainding, we don't know the chemical processes of our brains, maybe we are in a black box which is our senses, that are basically electric pulses connected to a central organ

Understanding something in any meaningful sense of the word entails subjectivity, that is, an 'I' that experiences what it is doing. We don't know all the details of how this works in humans, but I'm pretty sure that we'll never get there with math and metal boxes alone. The hardware probably needs to be organic to be able to facilitate real consciousness.

With the current understanding of physics, carbon is the most chemical compatible element meaning that if "life" exist, the most probable scenario is it being carbon based, nevertheless, I wouldn't discard the possibility for known or unknown elements or bosonic entities to form any kind of concioussnes.

Seriously though, when AI Morty achieved sentience, Before he was over ridden . That's how it's going to happen, that is how AI is going to achieve sentience. gooseygooseybumps.

We will never know, because we can't do experiments, as it's impossible to tell whether a mind other than your own exists

You cant have human consciousness without the biochemical hard wear working. You cant take human consciousness out of the human brain and put it somewhere else as it requires the human brain to work.

Well if is the fact that my mind is the only one essentially different to the others, it is basically irrelevant for scientific purposes.

so you are saying that it is a fundamental biological impossibility for brains much bigger, complex and faster to run or emulate a human brain the same way today's computers do? We don't even know if transistor based machines can achieve such accomplishment.

Do you know why some animals make the noises they do? Can you understand it on their level? Can you run their "Softwear" in the background? Lets take an Ant, can predict an ants motions and understand why its doing particular tasks without needing to study it for long periods of time? Even then do you really think you understand it? What evolutionary advantage would any creature have "emulating" our brains and how would that evolve?

On your second question

You need Electro-biochemical interactions, chemicals produced by the body. You cant truly emulate human consciousness.

The human brain is not infinitely complex it has a finite amount of connections chemicals in everything and will be immolated by a machine ..... lol voice to text getting creepy there

>immolated

It's still beyond our technological capability on account of the human brain being the strongest processor on the planet as far as I've heard.

>Voice to text
So it's obviously not good enough to use flawlessly, yet, but how good is it these days? Last time I fucked with it was the early 2000s I think. Is it as bad as autocorrect, better? What kind of error rate do you experience?

If you ask for an ant i could imagine their brain works in some levels, the involuntary one and a extremely reduced processing power consisting in recognizing some learned patterns basic patterns like evade moving objects, heat and other stimuli somehow relating it with preexisting memories, but they don't think they criteria goes away from that.

*I don't

>Imagine

Imagining is not emulating you fail

Class is over user lost the debate