Depending on definition of consciouseness, we (humans) are just a biological machines (one possible extreme), or any reasonably complicated computer is a conscious being (another one).

And actually it is not very significant what kind of complexity of system or what kind of performance you call consciouseness - you will almost ALWAYS find slightly less or more performing machine or biological system, so regardless what definition of consciouseness you decided to come up with, there is no qualitative (really distinct) difference between conscious and non-conscious systems - only quantitative (complexity).

Just consider evolution of a brain (say, from insect to human) and tell me when it became conscious - when it had 1 neuron, 10, 10^5 or 10^10 ?

Or when AI system becomes conscious? If you tempted to say: never - think again. Learning databases and various flexible expert systems are already self-modyfying and are approaching self-programming capabilities, so "self-awareness" as a distinctive feature of a consciouseness may soon be shared by a computer systems too.

• A computer is not conscience. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:16 UTC
• Another thing about Computers. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 01:22 UTC
  • Another thing about biology - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 01:40 UTC
    • Human's are no where near that simple - highvoltage - July 6, 2001 - 01:48 UTC
      • I oversimplified, but the premise is the same - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 02:08 UTC
        • Not exaclty. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 04:03 UTC
          • I agree with you on the level of complexity - stormcrow - July 6, 2001 - 04:17 UTC
            • Not crossed wires - highvoltage - July 6, 2001 - 05:39 UTC
            • I disagree about you saying that pople have no free-will. - motumos - July 6, 2001 - 05:50 UTC
              • Actually atomic bomb was against Stalin's growing power. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 16:58 UTC
                • It was a choice nontheless - caprinicus - July 7, 2001 - 00:23 UTC
                • Even you typing this reply was a choice, not a necessity. - caprinicus - July 7, 2001 - 00:34 UTC
                  • Not neccesarily - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 02:34 UTC
                    • I don't think so - highvoltage - July 7, 2001 - 03:32 UTC
                    • Free will works regardless of normal DNA in humans. - caprinicus - July 7, 2001 - 03:52 UTC
                      • I'll try and explain - stormcrow - July 7, 2001 - 13:55 UTC
                        • Wrong again. - caprinicus - July 8, 2001 - 13:08 UTC
                          • Omni-Post - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 00:17 UTC
                            • God-days may be true - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 05:22 UTC
                              • Sure, back it up - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 13:40 UTC
                                • God days.... - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 17:07 UTC
                                  • I see your point, but doesn't this prove the Bible's ambiguity? - stormcrow - July 9, 2001 - 19:31 UTC
                                    • Doens't prove the bible's ambiguity - highvoltage - July 9, 2001 - 20:16 UTC
                                      • Bible is full of impossible phenomena. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 20:43 UTC
                                        • again proof - terry - November 15, 2001 - 12:36 UTC
                          • Caprinicus - you don't know how brain, universe, etc works. - alexander - July 9, 2001 - 18:43 UTC
    • Here's the difference - aurino - July 6, 2001 - 13:55 UTC
      • NOT ALL BRAIN CELLS are speech, image and sound related. - alexander - July 6, 2001 - 17:11 UTC