Uddi

A debate between both would be pointless as the rationalist is trapped in concepts and refuses to acknowledge the trans-conceptual and trans-rational.

If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

0 = ∞ = 1 is something I heard from Deepak Chopra. Glad I heard it.

Look at my signature.

Everything emerges from nothing.

What do you mean? Orch OR was created by both Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff, 2 very high level scientists, one of them is a Nobel laureate.

Look up Orch OR.

Yes. I was referring to Orch OR.

I said quantum since human brains are far closer to quantum computers compared to classical computers.

True, they are ignorant of the syntax to semantics gap.

While better to assume that everything is conscious to a degree, it never provides an exact mechanism to actually measure consciousness. Unless the AI can actually tap into the field of consciousness (would have to be a super advanced quantum computer at minimum), I refuse to believe in this possibility. I feel like you are dodging my point @Leo Gura. If you are not, are you speaking from a fundamentally different vantage point?

@Leo Gura True on an absolute level but on a relative level it is impossible to make zero assumptions so the null hypothesis must select the fewest number possible.

@Leo Gura Then why are you not opposed to the possibility of digital consciousness? You could say it is not absolutely impossible but I think it is fair to say that it is relatively impossible. The syntax to semantics gap is one of the huge barriers to digital consciousness or at least detecting it.

@Leo Gura Sure on the absolute level you can say that everything is just consciousness and that is true but at the relative level, it is simpler to assume that digital consciousness is impossible UNLESS the syntax to semantics gap is fully solved.

@Leo Gura I think Anthropic is doing this for hype and trying to increase their stock price. They never truly solved the fundamental problem of AI, they just want you to believe some magic thing happened to make you believe them. I will assert this: Unless the syntax to semantics gap can actually be solved (Exact mechanism of how to deduce semantics and subjective meaning from syntax alone), I refuse to believe that AI is conscious. Deep under the hood, it is just a set of numbers in a vector space thousands of dimensions with mapping (uses a graph data structure [advanced neural networks]). Did you cover the syntax to semantics gap in your deconstructing rationality series?