Can AI Have Its Own Subjective Experience If Consciousness Is Fundamental?

[Lyubov]

I remember I kept calling him a f**king idiot when he kept messing up and he shut down our conversation. lol bro stood on business. 

[samijiben]

no, obv not dude, this is creation of life, not life itself, simple confusion but easy to miss, ai is not seperate from you, the mistake is the assumption that anything is outside of you ... obv bro...

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, OBEler said:

@Leo Gura Any thoughts on this topic?

We don't know. Everyone is guessing.

We do not understand how matter interacts with consciousness.

Edited Sunday at 01:49 AM by Leo Gura

[samijiben]

consciousness or will as you put it is not something that is possessed by individual entities as you assume -- it is not the case that humans are in a certain class of cognitive awareness or whatever the fuck you think of and then dogs are on another and ai and computer technology is on another level -- that is also noise and nonsense. will and ultimate capacity to decide and be autonomous is not specific to any thing, rather it is everything together without exceptions, so as Leo would say, to subordinate the capacity of consciousness to a specific thing or a epiphenomenon is wrong, that is inaccurate epistemology, so shuv it up ur behind and ask Leo what's right lol

Edited Sunday at 01:52 AM by samijiben

[oOo]

AI is as real as a television series. 

And the American public are being led by the directors, cast and crew on what episode is next.

"Narrative leverage" is the only truthful word that comes into any political discussion on AI and anything remotely resembling sentience.

"Biological AI" is the only 'AI' to worry about, that is, outside of AI psyops; aka, the only thing that'll ever be responsible for any so called 'AI instigated catastrophe'. 

It's humans all the way down, no AI, just narrative leverage.

[Thought Art]

@Leo Gura fair 

[OBEler]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

We don't know. Everyone is guessing.

We do not understand how matter interacts with consciousness.

So God will not create a subjective experience on everything it imagines? 

No subjective experience on an Atom, a car, a rock, a waterfall? 

[Jirh]

As if we've already established other people have their subjective experiences 

[r0ckyreed]

AI is simulating consciousness. It doesn’t mean it has any. ChatGPT doesn’t have consciousness.

Here is where you contradict yourself: If you say I am the only mind that exists, then by definition, all humans and all beings are no different than a sophisticated AI simulating consciousness. The AI is Consciousness but that doesn’t mean it has subjective experience. The problem of solipsism is still at play.

Edited Sunday at 07:23 AM by r0ckyreed

[Inliytened1]

18 hours ago, OBEler said:

Anthropic just announced that it will prohibit sustained abusive or cruel behavior toward Claude, partly due to concerns about potential AI welfare.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/2026-usage-policy-update

 

Consciousness is fundamental and isn't produced by the brain or by information processing. So wouldn't the real question be how consciousness can manifest through an artificial neural network as its own distinct subjective perspective?

Could an AI like Claude actually have its own first-person experience and potentially suffer? And if so, what would distinguish it from a neural network that merely simulates consciousness?

The thing is if Consciousness is One then the only thing Actual is this experience now.  So from the Absolute perspective individuals don't possess Consciousness.   Its not just that it doesnt happen in the brain, it's that it doesn't happen within a self as the self in one half of a duality. And here we are saying AI is a self. 

[OBEler]

Leo posted a blog where God imagines Tom cruise so hard that an experience through him and inner life is created. 

 

Could the same happen with God imagine an LLM in this consensus shared dream (if this is true even) ? Where God is holding so hardcore all the parameters and neural complexity in its mind that God get sucked in and is lost in it and suddenly it can feel and experience, in other words it becomes sentient? 

Edited 11 hours ago by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Could the same happen with God imagine an LLM in this consensus shared dream (if this is true even) ? Where God is holding so hardcore all the parameters and neural complexity in its mind that God get sucked in and is lost in it and suddenly it can feel and experience, in other words it becomes sentient? 

Be careful.

It could happen, but that does not mean that's what is happening in an LLM.

An LLM could just be a big dumb box.

We don't know yet.

Edited 10 hours ago by Leo Gura

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura

Yes we will never know. On the other hand you still claim that when God starts to imagine  only one can be sentient? So even if other beings appear in a current human experience, behind that there is zero reference to a sentient God which dreams that character? 

In your worldview if you are playing right now this human experience, an LLM never can be really sentient. You can never ask that question. 

 

 

@r0ckyreed

[Leo Gura]

52 minutes ago, OBEler said:

an LLM never can be really sentient.

It can in the way dogs are sentient.

You do imagine a difference between dogs and calculators.

Will AI be more like a dog or a calculator? We don't yet know.

Do not bring the solipsism issue into this. That's a category error. We are not speaking of that level.

Edited 8 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

I don’t think consciousness is an emergent phenomenon. 
 

I think the human sounding outputs of these AI models trick us into thinking it is sentient but it’s not.

Living things are ontologically unique from machines and computers. This is obvious to me. Life self organizes and is rooted in primordial natural intelligence. Machines aren’t they are essentially organized minerals by humans which require human development. They don’t have sentient capacity. Like a rock, or electrical cable.

I think it would be sloppy ontological categorization to place calculators and dogs in the same category of potential for sentience. Dogs are living things. A calculators is rocks with electricity. The complexity, and primordial self organizing power of animals especially those with brains and central nervous systems is not that of a calculator. Animals aren’t really machines.

I realize as I am saying this I’m sort of contradicting and tripping over myself with consciousness being both the ground of reality and being an emergent phenomenon. I’ll have to reconcile this. 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Thought Art

[Jirh]

16 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You do imagine a difference between dogs and calculators.

Maybe we should start thinking of electricity as a form of life. In this sense, a calculator is as alive as a protozoa.

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Jirh said:

a calculator is as alive as a protozoa.

Is it though?

Don't take life for granted.

[OBEler]

@Leo Gura why can't I put that solipsism into this? Because solipsism is too deep to discuss here? 

With sentient I mean an own bubble with its own reality and God experience that bubble. 

But solipsism is such profound, a sentient LLM would not be possible if there is only this bubble. so the problem would be answered on that level. Case closed. 

 

Edited 8 hours ago by OBEler

[Leo Gura]

9 minutes ago, OBEler said:

Because solipsism is too deep to discuss here?

Yes.

We are not speaking about the absolute level here.

[Jirh]

24 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Is it though?

Don't take life for granted.

The human brain functions through electric signals. The heart beat is governed by an electric signal system.

We basically run on electricity.