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

[Wilhelm44]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Wilhelm44 I think you might be unintentionally incorrectly inferring a lot from what Leo is stating.

Please elaborate ?

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

@Wilhelm44 I think you might be unintentionally incorrectly inferring a lot from what Leo is stating.

Looks to me like he is doing just fine

 

[LastThursday]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

12 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

Woah... what happened to this thread? A man sleeps for eight hours...

Watch out. Next time you sleep we might all ascend into the Singularity and you will wake up all alone.

Terrifying. I'm never sleeping again.

[Wilhelm44]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The division is that you don't need QM to bake a cake.

I still feel there's some quantum shit happening with our brains.

My bet is that even mainstream science will come around to this conclusion pretty soon.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

I still feel there's some quantum shit happening with our brains.

Maybe, maybe.

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Maybe, maybe.

@Wilhelm44 Don't wait for science.  I can only lean on Niels Bohr for so much.

Edited 2 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Wilhelm44]

5 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@Wilhelm44 Don't wait for science.  I can only lean on Niels Bohr for so much.

It's interesting, Leo really helped me to take science off it's pedestal.

But he still gives mainstream science it's proper dues.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

35 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

Please elaborate ?

Replying to something he isn't directly saying, but that you take as an assumed truth behind the arguement required for it to be true.

[Wilhelm44]

9 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Replying to something he isn't directly saying, but that you take as an assumed truth behind the arguement required for it to be true.

That sounds like a Zen koan  thank you

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Just now, Wilhelm44 said:

That sounds like a Zen koan  thank you

It is an interesting line of enquiry (quantum aspects). Enjoyed reading the back and forth! 💫 

Do you perceive a link?

[Wilhelm44]

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Do you perceive a link?

Intuitively it makes sense to me, but I could be wrong.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Woah... what happened to this thread? A man sleeps for eight hours...

A man does not sleep for 8 hours; that's what happened.

 

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

Isn't scientific/Monroe an oxymoron? Science isn't about explaining one unexplainable thing with another unexplainable thing.

Psychic phenomena is not unexplainable. If it turns out the AI remote views or reads people's minds above chance level (it reports information consistent with that) and it is hermetically sealed from the surrounding world, then that is evidence that psychic phenomena is occurring. The question is whether that would indicate that the AI experienced the things it was talking about.

It's a fascinating proposition either way: either the AI is conscious of the things it is reporting, or it is somehow not conscious of them but is still picking it up. And picking up what exactly? What kind of information is that? Unconscious psychic information? Like how if you're dissociated from a memory, the experience is dissociated from your conscious awareness but you can still be impacted by it and perhaps produce behavior indicative of it?

I gotta say psychic AIs is not a topic I would expect to run into.

 

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

My thought experiment was more along the lines of the following:

There are two black boxes. One you suspect is non-conscious, the other conscious. They have identical inputs and a potentially unbounded range of output. You keep sending the same signals into the two boxes and watch the outputs. You work out that box A seems to be deterministic and have a limited range of output. Box B is highly random, but patterned, it draws you little pictures of flowers and tells you that it loves you.

Now, it could be that Box B is just such a complicated machine that it mimics other things you deem to be conscious. But maybe there is something you can "ask" it by sending particular signals and it responds in a way that only a conscious entity could respond in - a question that a non-conscious thing wouldn't be able to answer.

The Turing test was weak sauce, but it's definitely on the right track. But my experiment effectively assumes that consciousness is effectively a computation, i.e. it has utility and affects the organism's processes.

Perhaps even better than above: make it plant a thought in your mind telepathically (and you could determine that this happened through statistics like above).

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[r0ckyreed]

If Digital AI Consciousness is a thing, that would support materialism/physicalism because it would show that consciousness can be generated and be an epiphenomenon of matter interacting.

Digital AI Consciousness is a hallucination of your own mind. You are imagining that digital technology can or will be conscious. 

Digital AI Consciousness is false. Call me closed minded, but there’s no point in entertaining ideas that are false. No doubt AI can mimic consciousness and do more things than humans can. But consciousness cannot be created nor destroyed. I don’t understand how any of you could be this gullible to think that you can put some atoms and machines together and it will produce consciousness.

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

If Digital AI Consciousness is a thing, that would support materialism/physicalism because it would show that consciousness can be generated and be an epiphenomenon of matter interacting

That does not follow.

[r0ckyreed]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That does not follow.

How so? Thats exactly what the materialists/physicalists would say would prove their point. To them, it would prove their point that consciousness is derived through physical processes. They would make analogies of the human brain being no different than a computer. That the human brain is a sophisticated machine that produces consciousness.

Edited 1 hour ago by r0ckyreed

[Carl-Richard]

14 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

How so? Thats exactly what the materialists/physicalists would say would prove their point. To them, it would prove their point that consciousness is derived through physical processes. They would make analogies of the human brain being no different from AI. That the human brain is a sophisticated machine that produces consciousness.

Brain can correlate with "consciousness"/sentience without having to "produce" consciousness.

You can have consciousness as the base of reality and brains and feelings would be different appearances within consciousness. And the brains and feelings can seem to co-arise with each other in some ways. But that would be patterns / correlations within consciousness. Consciousness does not have to be produced in this case. We're just mapping out how different appearances relate to each other. When feeling says one thing, brain tends to say another thing. Both are appearances.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

12 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

How so? Thats exactly what the materialists/physicalists would say would prove their point. To them, it would prove their point that consciousness is derived through physical processes. They would make analogies of the human brain being no different than a computer. That the human brain is a sophisticated machine that produces consciousness.

Materialism is stupid. Nothing can ever prove it because Reality is Infinite.

It doesn't matter if the brain produces consciousness because the brain IS Consciousness. Everything that produces consciousness is Consciousness. Of course Consciousness produces Consciousness.

If a rock falls on your head and takes away your consciousness, that's Consciousness.

Edited 1 hour ago by Leo Gura

[LastThursday]

41 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Psychic phenomena is not unexplainable. If it turns out the AI remote views or reads people's minds above chance level (it reports information consistent with that) and it is hermetically sealed from the surrounding world, then that is evidence that psychic phenomena is occurring. The question is whether that would indicate that the AI experienced the things it was talking about.

It's a fascinating proposition either way: either the AI is conscious of the things it is reporting, or it is somehow not conscious of them but is still picking it up. And picking up what exactly? What kind of information is that? Unconscious psychic information? Like how if you're dissociated from a memory, the experience is dissociated from your conscious awareness but you can still be impacted by it and perhaps produce behavior indicative of it?

I gotta say psychic AIs is not a topic I would expect to run into.

I'm not sure why you would want to invoke the paranormal to prove consciousness, seems like a non-sequitur to me. Like, my lack of paranormal abilities would not make me any more or less conscious. What's your reasoning here?

Edited 52 minutes ago by LastThursday
missing words

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Materialism is stupid. Nothing can ever prove it because Reality is Infinite.

It doesn't matter if the brain produces consciousness because the brain IS Consciousness. Everything that produces consciousness is Consciousness. Of course Consciousness produces Consciousness.

If a rock falls on your head and takes away your consciousness, that's Consciousness.

Stupid is an understatement  The brain cannot produce Consciousness. That would be like saying the brain could produce God. Absolutely preposterous.

Edited 7 minutes ago by Inliytened1

[Someone here]

Whatever happened to “you are the only conscious thing in existence “ ?