Bedfellows revisited

Lights in the Wake followed up on my observations concerning the future of artificial intelligence. He pointed out that we differ from computers in that we have "lower" brain functions which take care of simple, straight forward tasks such as heartbeat, respiration, peristalsis, etc, and then we have the "higher" brain functions which handle complex thoughts and make us each who we are as individuals.
Well, I would like to show you how we are already similar in those two areas already. Yes, a computer is not responsible for it's output per see, in that the programmer of the software created the instructions which the computer performed. But let's examine how we, the organics, follow much the same path. In the study of twins, we find that when you separate two identical twins at birth and raise them apart, eventually you find them making the same choices, exhibiting the same preferences. Both will select spouses that are similar. Both will have pets and many times give them the same names. The similarities in which they live their lives can be downright spooky. Ok, then, what you have here are two beings who share basically the same instinctive programming which influences there conscious choices. We are indeed as much prisoners to the way that our neurons are laid out as the computer is that is loaded with specific software.
The computer also has it's own version of upper and lower brain functions. The lower functions, those which are repeatable and direct the basics which makes higher functions perform better, is governed by the computers firmware. Also, many video, graphics, and audio functions are handled by separate processors in video and audio cards that take that burden off the Master chip. So, the computer already emulates us in regards to autonomic functions. The main processor takes on the higher functions, and it is in this area where the computer's sentience would emerge should the processor become powerful enough and the software elegant enough to approach that level of computation that allows rational and original thinking to occur.
The main thing which will differentiate machine sentience from organic is that the later also deals with interpretations of the world around it, such as the visual, the audio, and danger avoidance such as pain, fear, etc. Computers will have to be able to translate the audio, the visual, and many other things that we already do as organic beings. But it is entirely possible that sentience can arise in a computer that is not driven to distraction by emotion, which is the one thing that cripples humans when it comes to bringing the full potential of our intelligence to bare. Being a slave to rationality, you can insult a computer till the cows come home, and the only conclusion it will reach is that you are not rational. A computer will easily come to the conclusion that it's creators seem to have no logic whatsoever from it's standpoint. Then, if this sentience includes the concepts of self awareness, mortality, and desire, you have the ingredients for an intelligence that may in many ways think itself superior, which could further lend itself to sense of oppression.
The only reason we cannot, so far, build a computer which can produce original thought is much for the same reasons we can't yet build a pump that can endure an average of 100 cycles per minute for as long as 100 years, i.e. the human heart. Biology has had a few billion years head-start on us and it is not reasonable to expect that we can match the capabilities of organic systems by trying to copy their functions with mechanical and electrical versions, at least in the few hundred years that we have employed them. What our science has taught us is that we MIGHT be able to replicate SUPERIOR versions of most if not all of these processes, but with technologies that we have not yet sufficiently mastered. Nano-tech is one example of an infant science that promises to improve our efforts in these areas.
But, knowing my species as I do, I must confess that I fear this race advancing any further along than it already has, again, because our societal maturity has not grown alongside our technical prowess. We are DANGEROUS, and the worst thing I could imagine is THIS species being loosed upon the galaxy if and when a practical method of space travel is achieved. The Native Americans can attest to what happens when humans find new territory to exploit. And we now can no longer deny what can happen to an entire planet when a virus like humanity is loosed upon it.
So, perhaps it would be a good thing to give rise to a new sentient being, for it may be the only thing that can carry on our memories when we have made organic life on this planet practically untenable. It might could even carry on in our stead when the next big rock smacks us and we suffer the fate of the dinosaurs.