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 1 hour 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]

1 hour 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.

 

1 hour 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 isolated 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.

 

1 hour 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.

Here we go: make it plant a thought in your mind telepathically (and you could determine that this happened through statistics like above). That would be to "ask it" for something that again would be very weird if a non-sentient entity could do. 

Edited 1 minute 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.