Philosophy vs. Artificial Intelligence?

We cannot create an artificial "consciousness" without deliberately putting in a bug which prevents the computerized awareness from using valid and sound logic each and every time. No human is capable of this. Therefore no computer consciousness should be able to if we want it to think like a human.

What if we created such a thing, and it always used perfect validity and soundness in its logic? We would not be able to keep up with it. By the time we had what we believed to be our own "valid AND sound" retort, it would instantly have its own counterpoint--every time.

And you realize that to be a true "consciousness" it must have sensory organs that feed it all the material from which to build that consciousness? Otherwise two things occur:

1. it will have only the information programmed into it, which means everything it builds upon will be done in the fashion of an extreme Rationalist, which is impossible

2. and it will never have any information not provided to it by asking questions of people or other computers it can communicate with. It can never know the moment it first "sees" the trees turning colors, for instance.

Consciousness is not the faculty of being able to see, hear, feel etc. Consciousness is what begins to be built into a mind the moment it has its first sensory inputs. A baby of any species would die a day or two after birth if it was born with no senses at all. It wouldn't even know when food was put in its mouth so it would probably choke to death the first time that was tried.

A conscious computer--if it was to be believably human-like--would have to begin tabula rasa, just as a human does. Its programming would have to be nothing more than that of a human--just the capacity to do what nature allows a human to do, but not input with any actual information not provided by the senses.

And after all that, you would have nothing but a human-like mind made inside a machine, but because it would not have a soul/conscience to feel, as we do, it would still be robotic.

M is arrogant. C.E.Clark is not out of date, but makes valid points based on ruling Liberal ideas. I take issue, only, with those ruling ideas that we're born without any ideas, the blank slate. The mind is full of thought, as it is an attribute of the one Substance. Just as the heart is born with blood in motion, so the mind is the body and is born with thought and extended being in motion. All quantum matter carries information within itself and have a soul of these perceptions. Leibniz, Cusa, Plato, Lenin, Marx, Spinoza, Parmenides, and Aristotle, all presented versions of the idea that "matter thinks". Because matter thinks, thinking machines are possible, but we must remember that they're programmed. Self trained machines would still be operating in a class divided society, and therefore would need be trained, or schooled, in classical ideas of that struggle. There are no such things as non-physical entities, as that would be to state that mind is not matter carrying information. All quantums carry information, or how else do televisions work, or radio, or telescopes?

Artificial intelligence would still remain artificial.

you assume that artificial intelligence has not already been invented by humans... this is wrong

your question is about 200 years out of date, as many have asked and answered your question before

Check out the following and combine, synthesize your own conclusions:

read some Konrad Zuse (the guy who in the 1940s invented the first computer) and his notions of Digital Physics, that the universe itself is or functions similar to a computer

David Icke is underestimated

Hegel's philosophy of absolute mind and world history/progress

ancient Vedic philosophies of mind and how they underpin German Idealism, relate to Planck, Einstein, Bohm, Heisenberg inter alia

check out Terence Mckenna

rather than ask what philosophical problems this would create, is it not more important to seek out the extremely rich ways which we can apply artificial intelligence?

what of alien intelligence from physical and /or non-physical entities?

or are we the aliens inhabiting this planet we assume is ours?

think bigger, your perspective is too limited, as is evidenced by your question/s