Authors: Richard L. Amoroso
Generally the simplistic distinction between a humanoid robot, a computerized machine capable of replicating a variety of complex human functions automatically, and an android is one of appearance; an android is meant to look and act like a human being even to the extent of being indistinguishable. While one day a yottaflop (1024 bits per second) hyper-supercomputer could have a sufficient holographic database and processing power to be truly indistinguishable from a human being, the issue of the applicability of sentience (self-awareness) to an android comes to the forefront. The currently dominant cognitive model of awareness, closely aligned to the AI model, states that mind equals brain and that once correct algorithms are known all of human intelligence could be replicated artificially. This is the so-called mechanistic view: ‘The laws of physics and chemistry are sufficient to describe all living systems; no additional life principle is required’. In this work we develop the point of view that the regime of Unified Field Mechanics (UFM) supplies an inherent action principle driving both the evolution of complex Self-Organized Living Systems (SOLS) and the physical processes of awareness. These UFM parameters in conjunction with ‘conscious quantum computing’ (class of quantum computer modeled with physical parameters of mind-body interaction) putatively leads directly to the construction of sentient (or sentient-like) Androids.
Comments: 28 Pages.
[v1] 2015-04-27 16:42:30
Unique-IP document downloads: 66 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.