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

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Uddi said:

it is simpler to assume that digital consciousness is impossible

It is simpler to not assume.

[Uddi]

@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.

[Uddi]

@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.

[Wilhelm44]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

80-year-old Tom

That's ageist bro , but yeah I thought there was some mental imagery process to remote viewing. 

So maybe Tom has lost the plot.

Just like Bashar claiming people will be able to communicate with their higher selves through AI.

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Uddi said:

The syntax to semantics gap is one of the huge barriers

If atoms solved it once, they can solve it again.

Don't forget that your problems maybe only be problems inside your paradigm.

[Carl-Richard]

11 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

That's ageist bro , but yeah I thought there was some mental imagery process to remote viewing. 

So maybe Tom has lost the plot.

Just like Bashar claiming people will be able to communicate with their higher selves through AI.

Tom seems to have a bit of that physicist epistemic naivety when it comes to life, sentience, AI. I don't think he has thought much about how different lifeforms work and where to cash in different "altitudes of experience". (People who think current AI are conscious generally seem to be unable to distinguish between apparent self-reflection/meta-awareness or just linguistic ability and sentience/perception).

Edited 2 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Wilhelm44]

5 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

People who think current AI are conscious seem to be generally unable to distinguish between apparent self-reflection/meta-awareness or just linguistic ability and sentience/perception

Yeah, it's like some people are really keen to turn AI into the next religion.

Edited 2 hours ago by Wilhelm44

[Uddi]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If atoms solved it once, they can solve it again.

Don't forget that your problems maybe only be problems inside your paradigm.

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?

[Uddi]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Yeah, it's like some people are really keen to turn it into the next religion.

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

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Uddi said:

If you are not, are you speaking from a fundamentally different vantage point?

Did biology solve your syntax gap?

If yes, why can't digital do the same? If no, why can't digital step around it too?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Carl-Richard a non local awareness AI test is really, really interesting to me.... 

[Inliytened1]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

If atoms solved it once, they can solve it again.

Don't forget that your problems maybe only be problems inside your paradigm.

That's what I said. If electrical currents within the brain can construct consciousness than why couldn't electrical currents in a robot do.it.

But this is all a joke.  This is.all.within the dream..  This is the materialist paradigm. 

[Wilhelm44]

20 minutes ago, Uddi said:

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.

Well yeah, when AI goes fully quantum, who knows what's possible.

(Do humans not also suffer from some form of that syntax to semantics gap you mentioned, in that there's a disconnect between the word "tree" and what a tree really is. Or is that something totally unrelated.)

[Inliytened1]

@Leo Gura what you failed to.see is that the materialist paradigm is not just a paradigm.  It's baked into the dream

 

[Leo Gura]

There is probably not even a need for AI to go quantum. People love to invoke quantum for no good reason.

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Leo Gura what you failed to.see is that the materialist paradigm is not just a paradigm.  It's baked into the dream

I don't fail to see it.

You guys love assuming I'm a fool.

[Wilhelm44]

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

There is probably not even a need for AI to go quantum.

How so ?

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

How so ?

Do you have any proof that consciousness requires quantum effects? No.

That is just some sloppy guess Roger Penrose made.

Edited 2 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't fail to see it.

You guys love assuming I'm a fool.

You guys?  I just wanna make sure they undersrand.  They aren't privileged to your intelligence or my genetic gifts.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just shove AI into a robot body with sensors, so it can map to reality. Or maybe an organic body. Help to shorten your syntax/semantics gap.