Introduction
The consciousness problem serves as one of the most significant areas of emphasis in philosophy and science. Diverse philosophers and distinct scientists have embarked on defining and explaining it in diverse perspectives. In the present world, the meanings of the words consciousness and machine might change while the statements surrounding the might no longer follow a similar direction, as it is the case with today. This might occur for various reasons. Nonetheless, by moving past these reasons at the present, it is crucial to determine whether machines have the capacity of being self-intelligent. Intelligence and consciousness are attributed to living things whereas non-living things would only be perceived as conscious if they behave in the same manner as conscious living things (Copeland, 2015) . People have become accustomed to perceiving the robots they witness in science fiction films as living things, because even though they might not be alive, they behaviors resemble those of living things. Nevertheless, concerning certain AI scientists, they might claim that machines have the ability of evaluating their own mechanisms. For instance, artificial intelligence programs suggest that their programs comprise of in-built mechanisms of assessing their own mechanisms (Russell, Dewey, & Tegmark, 2015) . The AI (artificial intelligence) field is exercising tremendous efforts aimed at reproducing mentality when it comes to computational machines. Currently, the programs are limited, although supporters argue that computers will eventually have a real mind. It is probable to say that machines have some level of consciousness since they are capable of reading meaning in certain symbols. In this case, it might be easy to say that intelligence does not need to be embodied in living things, but might also occur in computer systems that use the silicon. One of the key claims revolves around the idea that any physical system having the capacity of undertaking vital processes might be meaningfully intelligent. Therefore, it is quite easy to argue that machines have intelligence because they are capable of undertaking vital tasks in the same manner as living things (Frankish & Ramsey, 2014) . Thus, the paper discusses whether it will be possible for artificial intelligence to become c consciousness.
Discussion
Presently, numerous advancements have been realized in the field of artificial intelligence such as in boosting the capacity of cars in driving themselves. Nevertheless, when it comes to a machine that understands itself in line with the surroundings together with the capability of processing considerable amounts of data in real time might require groundbreaking development. Realization of such a machine would make it possible to send it to dangerous missions into combat and space. Furthermore, in addition to driving individuals around, it would have the capacity of cooking, doing laundry, cleaning, as well as keeping people company when their friends or families are not around. In addition, a certain advanced group of machines might replace human beings in almost all jobs. This would save humans beings from the stresses that come with work although might end up shaking various foundations that govern the present society. A life without work or play might end up being a dystopia (Ratsch, Richter, & Stamatescu, 2013) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the case of conscious machines, they might raise challenging ethical and legal problems. Questions might arise such as whether a conscious machine should be perceived a “person” under the law and held liable for the actions it undertakes, such as when it hurts individuals or certain things go wrong. Considering a frightening situations, the machines might rebel humans and consider eradicating them altogether. In case machines were conscious, they would reflect a peak of evolution. In the perspective of diverse experts working in quantum theory, computer science, as well as electrical engineering, they are currently divided on the idea of whether it will be possible for hyperaware machines to exist. Also, numerous debates prevail concerning whether it is appropriate to refer to machines as ‘conscious’ in the same way for certain animals and humans (Collins & Smith, 2013) . In this case, certain questions are attributed to technology whereas others revolve around understanding what conscious really means.
Awareness Issue
A large number of computer scientists believe that consciousness serves as a trait that will emerge with further advancements in technology. Some think that consciousness entails accepting new information, retrieving old data, storing, and cognitive processing of all the data into actions and perceptions. In the event that is true, machines will therefore realize ultimate consciousness one day. They will have the capacity of gathering vast amounts of data that people, store significant number of libraries, access diverse databases in milliseconds, and compute the data to decisions, which will be more complex that any normal person would. By contrast, certain philosophers and physicists argue that there exists something more concerning human behavior, which a machine is incapable of processing. For instance, creativity in line with the sense of freedom people have does not seem to originate from calculations. However, these just serve as views regarding consciousness in line with whether it would be possible for machines to realize it (Lu, Li, Chen, & Kim, 2017) .
Quantum Viewpoints
An additional view concerning consciousness emanates from quantum theory, which serves as the deepest physics theory. In the viewpoint of Copenhagen Interpretation, the physical world and consciousness serve as complementary things reflecting a similar reality. When an individual observes or experiments on a certain physical world’s aspect, the conscious intersection of the individual results to discernible change. Since it requires consciousness while no initiative has been made to gather it from physics, the Copenhagen Interpretation might be referred to as the “Big-C” perspective of consciousness, where it serves as a things that prevails on its own, even though it needs brains to serve as real. This kind of idea gained tremendous popularity among the individuals that pioneered quantum theory. The interaction between matter and consciousness results to paradoxes, which have remained unaddressed after tremendous debates. A popular illustration of the paradox is the Schrodinger’s cat. The paradox revolve around where a cat is situated in an environment that subjects it to a situation of dying or surviving while the observation’s act leads the outcome to be certain (Collins & Smith, 2013) .
On the opposing view, it is that consciousness results from biology in the same manner that biology results from chemistry, which then emerges from physics. This is referred to a minimal concept attributed to consciousness denoted as “little-C.” This agrees with the view of neuroscientists that mind processes resemble brain processes. It also rhymes with a recent quantum theory’s interpretation driven by the need for eradicating paradoxes, the Many World Interpretation. Furthermore, in this case, the observers are part of physics’ mathematics. In the event of science philosophes, they fee that contemporary quantum physics’ viewpoints concerning consciousness have equivalents in prehistoric philosophy. Big C is similar to Vedanta’s theory of the mind whereby consciousness serves as the groundwork of reality in line with the physical universe. By contrast, Little C resembles Buddhism. Whereas Buddha opted to emphasize on the idea of consciousness, the individuals who followed him argued that consciousness and the mind come from nothingness or emptiness (Ratsch, Richter, & Stamatescu, 2013) .
Big C and Scientific Finding
Scientists are also laying considerable emphasis on researching whether consciousness serves as a computational process all the time. Certain scholars stipulate that creative instances do not reflect an end to intentional computational. For example, visions or dreams inspired the discovery of the contemporary sewing machine by Elias Howe in 1845. A major evidence that favored consciousness in the perspective of the Big-C that prevails individually is reflected in the life of Srinivasa Ramanujan, self-taught mathematician from India. In his notebook, various formulas were identified that lacked proof in other mathematical areas, which remained ahead of time. Additionally, the manner in which he developed the formulas remains unclear (Ratsch, Richter, & Stamatescu, 2013) . In his perspective, he argued that a goddess revealed them to him while sleeping. The Big-C consciousness idea has raised tremendous debates concerning the manner in which it is linked to manner in line with the way that the mind and matter influence each other mutually. It is not possible for consciousness to institute physical alterations in the world on its own, although it might change probabilities apparent in quantum processes. In 2015, Cornell physicists proved that it is possible for the act of observation to influence or even freeze the movement of atoms (Russell, Dewey, & Tegmark, 2015) . In this case, this might serve as an explanation concerning the way in which the mind and matter interact.
Conclusion
On the issue of whether artificial intelligence will gain consciousness, the idea of the mind as well as the self-organizing systems becomes apparent. In this case, it might be probable that consciousness demands a system that has the capacity of organizing itself, such as the physical structure of the brain. In such a situation, the present state of machines fails to reach this state. At the present, scholars lack understanding concerning whether it is possible to design self-organizing machines that can resemble the sophistications apparent in the human brain. Presently, no mathematical theory that can assist in fostering such computation processes. In this case, it might seem true that only biological machines have the capacity of being adequately flexible and creative. However, this suggests that humans should or will commence working on biological structures that might end up becoming conscious eventually.
References
Collins, A., & Smith, E. E. (2013). Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Copeland, J. (2015). Artificial intelligence: A philosophical introduction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Frankish, K., & Ramsey, W. M. (2014). Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lu, H., Li, Y., Chen, M., & Kim, H. (2017). intelligence: go beyond artificial intelligence. Mobile Networks and Applications , 1-8.
Ratsch, U., Richter, M. M., & Stamatescu, I. O. (2013). Intelligence and artificial intelligence: An interdisciplinary debate. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Russell, S., Dewey, D., & Tegmark, M. (2015). Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. Ai Magazine, 36 (4), 105-114.
