That being said, the most recent neuroscience and artificial intelligence research is eroding our privileged status at the tippy-top of the natural world. Indeed, what would stop a machine from having thoughts, having feelings,

It's absurd to suppose that computers could have thoughts and feeling's and people who promote this view are still intertwinned with Descarte's, in supposing that emotion's are some purely mental property which hold a secluded existence from the rest of the world. Rather than something that is observable in both people's behaviour and in the working's of there neurology.

It's absurd of talking about a computer being in pain, how would the computer exhibit this pain. Emotive predicates can only be applied to a creature that has the ability to manifest such capacities in behaviour in speech, action and in reaction to the circumstances of life.

You can build Artificial software which you could simulate both the inputs and outputs of the brain, I dont deny that. But it is still senseless to talk about an artificial neural computer being in 'Pain'. When we talk about someone being in 'pain', 'worried' or 'upset' we are not reffering to the whats going on within there neurology, it may be one way to quantify if someone is having that particular emotive experience. But we talk about pain were talking about a set of behaviour's, of a living creature with a body. What would an upset computer look like?

My favorite is: "What distinguishes the human brain from a sufficiently advanced artificial counterpart?"

It's absurd of talking about a computer being in pain, how would the computer exhibit this pain. Emotive predicates can only be applied to a creature that has the ability to manifest such capacities in behaviour in speech, action and in reaction to the circumstances of life.

This is a question way beyond its years but still a valid one. Computers do exactly that compute, therefore a computerized brain structure would compute with complete logic, assuming that it had the compacity for it. Only to its demise would this "brain" of yours be able to do just that and no more. Logic by definition means a being is aware of its external environment and the internal impact of its mechanics. Abstract thought witch is necessary for life and reason, This sentient being would not be capable of.

That's irrelevant, and in the future it may not even be true.

What is the essential distinction between a natural and artificial neural network?

Irrelevant?

If you can show me a computer than can make a person, then I will call them equivalent.

BTW, anyone should feel free to use my answer in their next philosophy class. It will end the discussion very quickly.

Rich

Show me a human that can "create" a person from scratch. (Protip: Your comparison is unfair.)

Uh?? Do we need a lesson on the birds and the bees. It does take two to Tango, but that is the way it is.

That's the point: your test is rigged and bogus. Besides, there are plenty of things that humans can't do and even crude computers and artificial intelligences can.

Have you even considered that a sufficiently advanced AI would probably have no desire to create humans?

I'm an observer, not a science fiction writer, so I won't try to predict what may happen 1000 years from today. But sounds like a good Sci Fi story to me, and you may have a best seller on your hands. No kidding.

Computers basically add, subtract, and compare.

but computers cannot do any better than what humans tell them to do - albeit very quickly. Computers can't make humans. They can't make other computers. Even a roach can make another roach.

I am starting to doubt you have any understanding of computer science or neuroscience or anything like that.



Self-replicating machine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And another thing: we are machines. Don't you get that?

Well, I now I know what you think of yourself and me. Did you tell your wife (or girlfriend) what you think of her?

Seriously. Put a computer in the middle of a desert (with or without another computer of same or opposite sex), come back in a thousand years, and see how well they have multiplied.

Don't try to derail the argument with cutesy appeals to the consequences of beliefs, they're fallacious.



That really depends on what kind of abilities the machine is endowed with.

Indeed, nano-robots could become very prolific.