Artificial Intelligence

[idav]

Actually the reflecting physical attributes are waves. Science has not explained how our brains create color. It simply has gotten to the point where it says different cells (cones) react to different wavelengths differently resulting in a chemical response in the brain. The mechanism of action behind how the perception of color is formed in the brain is unknown.

If the brain does assign colors to different waves, and creates these completely novel entities that exist outside an objective universe, then the brain has a special power to create new things out of nothing. To me that's magic.

However let's assume that is correct. Then the materialist model simply will have to state that all qualia are at least partly hallucinations then, because an illusion is the interpretation of the data given to the brain. A hallucination is the creation of perceptions without sensations. And color is the creation of a new perception completely different from the sensation of light, as the sensation of light itself is simply a wave. Without color. Are you willing to make that claim? Because if you are then you have opened up a new can of worms, considering how hallucinations themselves are a very poorly understood topic. And that what we refer to as reality, is wrong.

Color is an illusion because matter doesn't look a certain color, it just reflects light waves based on the frequency that the atoms are vibrating at. Color is the next best thing to seeing frequency numbers coming off of the atoms. In a similar way we don't know know what infrared looks like yet we have computers generate a visual representation based on the heat of objects. Some animals can "see" heat and it would be nice if we could but realize that even if we can "see" heat we are just seeing a visual representation of it. Some people who have the color and letter/number sections of their brains crossed see numbers in certain colors for example all eights would look blue etc.

edit: The reason it isn't a hallucination is because does represent something physical. That physical thing isn't a hallucination.

 

[MD]

I'm quoting your own source:
6. Would you say, then, that plants “think”?
-No I wouldn’t, but maybe that’s where I’m still limited in my own thinking! To me thinking and information processing are two different constructs[...]
-[...]Just as a plant can’t suffer subjective pain in the absence of a brain, I also don’t think that it thinks. (I will translate this for you: since plants don't have a brain, they can not think. So yes, the autor was obviously speaking in a figurative way. The same way an inmunologist will say that white cells have memory and learning skills.)

Okay consciousness does not have a complete definition. Anyone who suggests that it does is blatantly lying and misleading other people.

However consciousness has an operant definition, meaning a definition which can be tested experimentally. It's not a complete definition, but it's the closest thing we have to one that is experimentally testable. It's not complete because it doesn't begin to address all the other aspects of consciousness. Philosophcially consciousness is what it is like to feel something, to posess qualia. But I will stick to the operational 'definition'

It is " An operational definition proposed in 2012 [76] states "consciousness is the sum of the electrical discharges occurring throughout the nervous system of a being at any given instant"."

(Consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The author also stated that plants have an anoetic consciousness. Let me translate that for you now, anoetic means passive consciousness. Plants have sensory receptors, they use glutamate, they process information and they transmit action potentials. They process information in their own way and they have their own form of consciousness. Now here's an interesting article.

Can Plants Think? | Popular Science

And, as a biologist, let me say that a cortex is needed in order to learn, so a brain is needed too.

But that's not all, in order to achieve subjective experience, u will need not only learning skills, but also memory. Let me explain what memory is:

Learning is the synthesis of new information and adaptation to that new information. It does not only take place in the cortical layers. Even the cerebellum 'learns'. It's not only in the cortex.

Now, what do you need to have memory? Well, a rather complex brain, of course. Temporal lobe, frontal lobe and hipoccampus are needed to manifest all types of memory. Damages in just one of these organs, can procue a high variety of illness related to the loss of memories.

source: Which Part Of The Brain Controls Memory

Actually you need a complex brain to transmit information to other parts of the brain to create more significant and complex mental maps of reality. However the act of encoding memory is unknown. Infact the latest scientific research by Stuard Hameroff suggests that memory is encoded in microtubules.

Scientists claim brain memory code cracked

Now Hameroff works with Roger Penrose in a quantum theory of mind which is called Orch OR. It was at first ridiculed but over time has had some evidence to back to it up. And btw Hameroff is another scientist who believes consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, rather than an emergent property.

You can say a plant is concious and can think, well, no one will take u literally because no one will believe such ignorance still exists these days. But if u insist u are speaking literally, then u can also say the sky is red, but no one will actually believe u.

Your condascending tone won't really change my views nor the evidence I have displayed.

 

[MD]

Color is an illusion because matter doesn't look a certain color, it just reflects light waves based on the frequency that the atoms are vibrating at. Color is the next best thing to seeing frequency numbers coming off of the atoms. In a similar way we don't know know what infrared looks like yet we have computers generate a visual representation based on the heat of objects. Some animals can "see" heat and it would be nice if we could but realize that even if we can "see" heat we are just seeing a visual representation of it. Some people who have the color and letter/number sections of their brains crossed see numbers in certain colors for example all eights would look blue etc.

edit: The reason it isn't a hallucination is because does represent something physical. That physical thing isn't a hallucination.

So color is an illusion. Okay who is being fooled? Our consciousness? But if our consciousness is made up of qualia, then isn't that an illusion as well? So what's being fooled by the illusion of our consciousness?

An illusion is the interpretation of information. Color is not encoded by any information, it is completely novel. Thus it is a hallucination (if what you're saying is true). I don't know anything about the computer representation example, but I think it simply means we have assigned values to heat based off color and the computer creates a representation based off the values we have assigned. It still doesn't explain why we have color. And even computers display different types of light with regards to color, they display light waves. They don't really display color per se, it's our interpretation of those waves which create color.

I am not saying that the brain is not involved in the creation of color. I am saying that there is another component to reality.

 

[idav]

So color is an illusion. Okay who is being fooled? Our consciousness? But if our consciousness is made up of qualia, then isn't that an illusion as well? So what's being fooled by the illusion of our consciousness?

An illusion is the interpretation of information. Color is not encoded by any information, it is completely novel. Thus it is a hallucination (if what you're saying is true). I don't know anything about the computer representation example, but I think it simply means we have assigned values to heat based off color and the computer creates a representation based off the values we have assigned. It still doesn't explain why we have color. And even computers display different types of light with regards to color, they display light waves. They don't really display color per se, it's our interpretation of those waves which create color.

I am not saying that the brain is not involved in the creation of color. I am saying that there is another component to reality.

Not sure how you can jump to representations being a different component in reality. We aren't seeing things that don't exist in reality. What we sense of any object is an interpretation of something sensed in the environment.

I'm not to hung up on what sense we are using or how we are sensing it. Everything that we hear feel or see are based on real physical phenomenon. We hear because we are translating the sound waves into something we can use. Without the wave hitting our ear AND being translated we wouldn't hear anything. To me it matters very little what the sound ends up becoming to our brain as long as it turns out that it "hears" something. In our early years as a baby our brain literally maps itself to be able see things in a certain way so even seeing is a learned behavior.

 

[otokage007]

If the brain does assign colors to different waves, and creates these completely novel entities that exist outside an objective universe, then the brain has a special power to create new things out of nothing. To me that's magic.

Eyes perceive frequencies as colors. They evolved to achieve this. The more complex is your brain, the more colors you see. Is this so hard to understand?

However let's assume that is correct. Then the materialist model simply will have to state that all qualia are at least partly hallucinations then, because an illusion is the interpretation of the data given to the brain. A hallucination is the creation of perceptions without sensations. And color is the creation of a new perception completely different from the sensation of light, as the sensation of light itself is simply a wave. Without color. Are you willing to make that claim? Because if you are then you have opened up a new can of worms, considering how hallucinations themselves are a very poorly understood topic. And that what we refer to as reality, is wrong.

That's nonsense. Who are u to say how light feels or how not? Truth is some particles emit light, and depending on the frecuency this light will have a particular brightness and color. Some of these frecuencies are captured by our eyes. It's quite simple actually!

And the proof that color is generated in the brain and not outside it as you suggest, is daltonic people. Daltonism can be found on the DNA, and this DNA will be translated into proteins, and proteins are something material not metaphysical. So colors exist withing the brain, and because of brain's proteins.

"consciousness is the sum of the electrical discharges occurring throughout the nervous system of a being at any given instant"."

You know plants don't have nervous system, don't you?

The author also stated that plants have an anoetic consciousness. Let me translate that for you now, anoetic means passive consciousness. Plants have sensory receptors, they use glutamate, they process information and they transmit action potentials. They process information in their own way and they have their own form of consciousness. Now here's an interesting article.

Plants aren't evolved enough to "transmit" action potentials, they can generate them, but they can not transmit electrical signals made by action potentials because they have no cell-to-cell electrical comunication systems (neurons). But back to the topic, if you want to say "well they have their own form of """consciousness""" because they ract to stimulli". That's fine with me, just make it clear that we are not talking about the same thing.

Learning is the synthesis of new information and adaptation to that new information. It does not only take place in the cortical layers. Even the cerebellum 'learns'. It's not only in the cortex.

What it's certain is that a plant doesn't learn, because learning implies understanding an activity, and plants don't know how to do any of the things they do, they just do them. So they can not have "subjective experience" or even experience of any kind. A chess AI is much much more reactive, intelligent and "concious" than a plant. Because plants will comit errors once, again, again, again and again untill natural selection fix them, but a chess AI will commit them only once due to their "learning-like" and "memory-like" skills, a thousand times more advanced than those of plants (if plants had any learning-like or memory-like systems which they don't).

Actually you need a complex brain to transmit information to other parts of the brain to create more significant and complex mental maps of reality. However the act of encoding memory is unknown. Infact the latest scientific research by Stuard Hameroff suggests that memory is encoded in microtubules.

Brain has plenty.

So you're a biologist? Can you tell me where in the brain that the processing of sweetness and redness takes place? Qualia are fundamental than any Brain or matter.

I suggest u do some research so u can learn how genetic damage and brain damage can make u stop sensing sweetness, redness, smells, and any kind of sensory experience.

 

[MD]

Not sure how you can jump to representations being a different component in reality. We aren't seeing things that don't exist in reality. What we sense of any object is an interpretation of something sensed in the environment.

Okay I'll give you an example. Imagine you see a school of fish, shaped like a giant fish from far. To me from far that giant fish looks awfully scary (which I think the purpose of schools are). But if I got close enough I would notice that it's actually a school of many small fish. The giant fish is reducible to many smaller fish.

With something like color, it's a completely new aspect of reality. It's not neural impulses of red giving rise to red. It's colorless neural impulses giving rise to red. It doesn't exist in our universe. So with my school of fish example instead of seeing a giant fish, I would see something that doesn't exist in our universe. Not something that even be broken down to it's parts. It's like I'm seeing a fire breathing ghost dragon but once I get close enough I see fish.

Qualia are irreducible. You cannot break red down into smaller components of red. Thus if materialism is true the brain creates color out of nothing.

I'm not to hung up on what sense we are using or how we are sensing it. Everything that we hear feel or see are based on real physical phenomenon. We hear because we are translating the sound waves into something we can use. Without the wave hitting our ear AND being translated we wouldn't hear anything. To me it matters very little what the sound ends up becoming to our brain as long as it turns out that it "hears" something. In our early years as a baby our brain literally maps itself to be able see things in a certain way so even seeing is a learned behavior.

Absolutely, all these sensations are real. So for AI purposes such qualia are irrelevant. However when it comes to things such as motivation, or anger, or ambition, things a conscious AI would need, qualia are incredibly important. Qualia are an integral component of what it means to be conscious. So you cannot create an AI which simulates consciousness, because eventually that simulation will collapse. It must emulate it and to emulate consciousness we need to understand qualia.

 

[idav]

Qualia are irreducible. You cannot break red down into smaller components of red. Thus if materialism is true the brain creates color out of nothing.

The brain is reducible into the functions it does. You can even be color blind and not be able to see certain spectrums of red. Heck you don't even need to be able to see at all and you would still have consciousness. You don't have to break down red, red is just a specific frequency of light. One could even end up with no long term memory capacity which would really put a damper on anyones conscious experience. Sensing the environment is what your calling qualia. Sensing the environment isn't special because we are human. Just cause what we are sensing is translating into something we can work with doesn't mean something is missing either.

 

[MD]

Eyes perceive frequencies as colors. They evolved to achieve this. The more complex is your brain, the more colors you see. Is this so hard to understand?

I'm sorry but it is you having a hard time understanding this. How does the brain create color? Answer me that.

That's nonsense. Who are u to say how light feels or how not? Truth is some particles emit light, and depending on the frecuency this light will have a particular brightness and color. Some of these frecuencies are captured by our eyes. It's quite simple actually!

Ahem what? Light has color intrinsic to it? Really?

And the proof that color is generated in the brain and not outside it as you suggest, is daltonic people. Daltonism can be found on the DNA, and this DNA will be translated into proteins, and proteins are something material not metaphysical. So colors exist withing the brain, and because of brain's proteins.

I never said the brain is not involved in the creation of color. Time and time again I have said the brain works to create color with another property of the universe. That property is a fundamental level of consciousness.

You know plants don't have nervous system, don't you?

Plants don't have a nervous system like humans do. But they have a system which processes information. What is a nervous system if not that?

Plants aren't evolved enough to "transmit" action potentials, they can generate them, but they can not transmit electrical signals made by action potentials because they have no cell-to-cell electrical comunication systems (neurons). But back to the topic, if you want to say "well they have their own form of """consciousness""" because they ract to stimulli". That's fine with me, just make it clear that we are not talking about the same thing.

Well I never said they have human consciousness. But they have a passive sense of consciousness. First of all you don't need only neurons to have cell to cell electrical communication systems. Gap junctions transmit electrical potential between cells. Plasmodesmata are found in plants and are analogous to gap junctions. From The Role of Plasmodesmata in the Electrotonic Transmission of Action Potentials - Springer

"Plasmodesmata provide electrical connections between plant cells, as demonstrated by experiments in which current injected into one cell can produce a change in potential in a neighboring cell (electrical coupling). The evidence available to date supports a mechanism for electrotonic coupling of cells in transmission of action potentials rather than a direct transmission of excitation along the plasma membranes in the plasmodesmatal pores."

What it's certain is that a plant doesn't learn, because learning implies understanding an activity, and plants don't know how to do any of the things they do, they just do them. So they can not have "subjective experience" or even experience of any kind. A chess AI is much much more reactive, intelligent and "concious" than a plant. Because plants will comit errores once, again, again, again and again untill natural selection fix them, but a chess AI will commit them only once due to their "learning-like" and "memory-like" skills, a thousand times more advanced than those of plants (if they had any learning-like or memory-like systems which they don't).

I posted an article which refutes your baseless claim that plants don't learn. Please do read it.

I suggest u do some research so u can learn how genetic damage and brain damage can make u stop sensing sweetness, redness, smells, and any kind of sensory experience.

I suggest you read up on the hard problems of consciousness which every single neuroscientists claims is true before you make such baseless claims that the brain magically creates perceptions.

 

[MD]

The brain is reducible into the functions it does. You can even be color blind and not be able to see certain spectrums of red. Heck you don't even need to be able to see at all and you would still have consciousness. You don't have to break down red, red is just a specific frequency of light. One could even end up with no long term memory capacity which would really put a damper on anyones conscious experience. Sensing the environment is what your calling qualia. Sensing the environment isn't special because we are human. Just cause what we are sensing is translating into something we can work with doesn't mean something is missing either.

Qualia are not reducible, not the brain. Are you saying that neurons create the tiny perceptions of red which become a greater perception of red?

About the long term memory capacity, you are partially correct. Conscious experience is dependant on diffuse brain pathways, rather than simply long term memory. But it would definitely hamper it.

Perceiving the environment is what I'm calling qualia. True sensations are actually just physical properties of the universe.

 

[idav]

Perceiving the environment is what I'm calling qualia. True sensations are actually just physical properties of the universe.

The perceiving is just a translation process. Color is just a symbol representing a physical property. The symbol isn't real it just what your physical brain evolved to translate frequencies into.

 

[MD]

The perceiving is just a translation process. Color is just a symbol representing a physical property. The symbol isn't real it just what your physical brain evolved to translate frequencies into.

Color doesn't exist in a colorless universe. It's one thing if we saw the frequency of red as a beautiful symbol, but colorless. Then I would agree with you. If our physical brain evolved into creating something completely novel in an objective universe, then either a) there is another component to the universe b) the brain is God

You earlier said that energy and time-space can create purpose. That's something similar to what I'm saying except for time-space and energy, there's a mental portion to the universe. It's not super intelligent God like being, but it exists on a rudimentary scale.

Btw thanks for not being condascending. Perhaps it's the pantheist in you .

 

[idav]

Color doesn't exist in a colorless universe. It's one thing if we saw the frequency of red as a beautiful symbol, but colorless. Then I would agree with you. If our physical brain evolved into creating something completely novel in an objective universe, then either a) there is another component to the universe b) the brain is God

We likely did evolve into seeing color as there are other animals that are colorblind or see black and white. It isn't something that was gifted to us overnight.

You earlier said that energy and time-space can create purpose. That's something similar to what I'm saying except for time-space and energy, there's a mental portion to the universe. It's not super intelligent God like being, but it exists on a rudimentary scale.

I like to think so too but I believe that the increased complexity is what allowed us to have our level of awareness intelligence emotions etc. Only the basic building blocks needed. In the evolution of the universe to the point of conscious beings, nothing really new had to be added except that "new" things are objects that changed or were built from what preceded it.

Btw thanks for not being condascending. Perhaps it's the pantheist in you .

I like these topics. Been trying to iron out this stuff in my head.

 

[MD]

We likely did evolve into seeing color as there are other animals that are colorblind or see black and white. It isn't something that was gifted to us overnight.

Some animals are color blind, whereas other animals see different wavelengths of color. However other animals who are colorblind have much more powerful qualia than we do, say for example dogs and smell. Smell is qualia, in actuality there are only chemicals of smell.

To say we evolved into seeing color still doesn't explain how color is created. We did evolve into seeing color, but I think the makeup of neurons in certain configurations result in the creation of color. And color is a mental property of the universe.

I really think there's another component of reality which I will call consciousness that in certain configurations with neurons results in the creation of qualia. I know it sounds incredibly mystical but honestly think about the universe, the multiverse, the possibilites are infinite. And I'm proposing a legitimate reason why I support this idea, and it's not something that I only believe in. Some of the best neuroscientists suggest the same thing.

I like to think so too but I believe that the increased complexity is what allowed us to have our level of awareness intelligence emotions etc. Only the basic building blocks needed. In the evolution of the universe to the point of conscious beings, nothing really new had to be added except that "new" things are objects that changed or were built from what preceded it.

The basic building blocks of matter are wave functions. The basic building blocks of mental should be broken down as well into rudimentary forms of consciousness. At the base everything is just a wave.

I like these topics. Been trying to iron out this stuff in my head.

This is probably the biggest problem in neuroscience. Some people want to ignore it or that once we map out the entire brain we'll find something that was previously hidden(Dennett, Markram), but that position is becoming smaller and smaller. Some people talk about other properties of the universe, mental properties. Koch, Tononi, Ramachandran, Hameroff have this view. I should also add that I'm pretty sure Kurzweil has this view, as he talks about the universe becoming conscious after the singularity. Others say that we will never ever understand consciousness because that's the limit of our understanding. Colin McGinn and David Eagleman have this view. It's like gravity or electricity, they exist but we don't really know what they are. It's just names we give to phenomenon.

 

[1137]

Okay consciousness does not have a complete definition. Anyone who suggests that it does is blatantly lying and misleading other people.

once again, just because the definition of consciousness does not leave room for the magical beliefs people need to hold for comfort does not mean that it is not defined. You yourself listed a definition and accepted this, but I have listed more from other sources. If by complete definition you mean we do not completely understand the mental processes as a whole that make us conscious, sure. Doesn't mean we are not going to and that they need to be the magical super consciousness that underlies all of reality and creates subjective experience randomly out of thin air. This is not a problem of what consciousness is, rather how exactly it works. We understand what consciousness is, now we need to determine if it is explained by mental process or needs the unobservable, untestable, fundamental, mystical qualia.

con·scious·nessnoun /ˈkänCHəsnəs/ 
consciousnesses, plural

1. The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings
   • - she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later
   
   
2. The awareness or perception of something by a person
   • - her acute consciousness of Mike's presence
   
   
3. The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world
   • - consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=con...pw.r_qf.&fp=65817657481ee744&biw=1024&bih=465




Definition of consciousness
noun

• 1 [mass noun] the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings: she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later

• 2a person’s awareness or perception of something: her acute consciousness of Luke’s presence
• the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world: consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain

Definition of consciousness - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)


Definition of CONSCIOUSNESS

1
: the totality in psychology of sensations, perceptions, ideas, attitudes, and feelings of which an individual or a group is aware at any given time or within a given time span <altered states of consciousness, such as sleep, dreaming and hypnosis&#8212;Bob Gaines>

2
: waking life (as that to which one returns after sleep, trance, or fever) in which one's normal mental powers are present <the ether wore off and the patient regained consciousness>

3
: the upper part of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes

Consciousness - Medical Definition and More from Merriam-Webster

con·scious·ness

&#8194; &#8194;[kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA
noun 1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.

3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.

4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.

Consciousness | Define Consciousness at Dictionary.com

 

[idav]

Some animals are color blind, whereas other animals see different wavelengths of color. However other animals who are colorblind have much more powerful qualia than we do, say for example dogs and smell. Smell is qualia, in actuality there are only chemicals of smell.

Machines can detect chemicals and all sorts of spectrum's of light. They are still just chemicals and the rest is subjective to the species. I wouldn't try and get into an argument with a fly whether or not poo smells bad. There may be stronger senses but there aren't necessarily better senses, we are just sensing based on our limitations.

To say we evolved into seeing color still doesn't explain how color is created.

Sure it does, color came in through evolution, it wasn't needed but gives an obvious evolutionary advantage.

We did evolve into seeing color, but I think the makeup of neurons in certain configurations result in the creation of color. And color is a mental property of the universe.

Those two lines seem to contradict. I agree with the first because what we perceive is based on anatomy and disagree with the second because color is a physical property. The neurons are physically decoding physical properties.

I really think there's another component of reality which I will call consciousness that in certain configurations with neurons results in the creation of qualia. I know it sounds incredibly mystical but honestly think about the universe, the multiverse, the possibilites are infinite. And I'm proposing a legitimate reason why I support this idea, and it's not something that I only believe in. Some of the best neuroscientists suggest the same thing.

I think we are advanced versions of simpler lifeforms. A neuron may do things other cells don't normally do but that is what makes our brains seem special. At the end of the day neurons are just cells just like the rest of the cells in your body communicating and decoding instructions. There is nothing to add to biology to explain awareness, it is our cells that are aware and form a collective. Perhaps a cell is more aware than a virus.

The basic building blocks of matter are wave functions. The basic building blocks of mental should be broken down as well into rudimentary forms of consciousness. At the base everything is just a wave.

The waves are made of particles. The particles act as a wave due to the quantum fluctuations which give the appearance of randomness.

 

[otokage007]

Some animals are color blind, whereas other animals see different wavelengths of color. However other animals who are colorblind have much more powerful qualia than we do, say for example dogs and smell. Smell is qualia, in actuality there are only chemicals of smell.

To say we evolved into seeing color still doesn't explain how color is created. We did evolve into seeing color, but I think the makeup of neurons in certain configurations result in the creation of color. And color is a mental property of the universe.

I really think there's another component of reality which I will call consciousness that in certain configurations with neurons results in the creation of qualia. I know it sounds incredibly mystical but honestly think about the universe, the multiverse, the possibilites are infinite. And I'm proposing a legitimate reason why I support this idea, and it's not something that I only believe in. Some of the best neuroscientists suggest the same thing.



The basic building blocks of matter are wave functions. The basic building blocks of mental should be broken down as well into rudimentary forms of consciousness. At the base everything is just a wave.



This is probably the biggest problem in neuroscience. Some people want to ignore it or that once we map out the entire brain we'll find something that was previously hidden(Dennett, Markram), but that position is becoming smaller and smaller. Some people talk about other properties of the universe, mental properties. Koch, Tononi, Ramachandran, Hameroff have this view. I should also add that I'm pretty sure Kurzweil has this view, as he talks about the universe becoming conscious after the singularity. Others say that we will never ever understand consciousness because that's the limit of our understanding. Colin McGinn and David Eagleman have this view. It's like gravity or electricity, they exist but we don't really know what they are. It's just names we give to phenomenon.

You said the plants were conscious, and if you want to believe that ok, I'm fine with that lol. But this whole thing of the universe being conscious, having mental properties and stuff. Are we speaking about reality or are we speaking about Harry Potter 8?

 

[1137]

You said the plants were conscious, and if you want to believe that ok, I'm fine with that lol. But this whole thing of the universe being conscious, having mental properties and stuff. Are we speaking about reality or are we speaking about Harry Potter 8?

Harry Potter wouldn't be so far fetched

 

[idav]

You said the plants were conscious, and if you want to believe that ok, I'm fine with that lol. But this whole thing of the universe being conscious, having mental properties and stuff. Are we speaking about reality or are we speaking about Harry Potter 8?

When building a machine with legos, at what point would the complexity make the legos aware?

 

[1137]

When building a machine with legos, at what point would the complexity make the legos aware?

Never.

 

[apophenia]

Harry Potter wouldn't be so far fetched

Life is going to get stranger than Harry Potter.

Here is a post from my thread "Are you bored with the forums ?" , which is about Evie (similar to Cleverbot, but with animated face) -

The face adds a whole other dimension. It is surprising how quickly the mind begins to embrace the illusion of a conscious entity with just a few simple cues.

This phenomenon is going to be huge in about 5 years. Social media is addictive enough, but imagine AIs more developed than this which also have an ongoing history with you, which learn and reflect your style, and which can gain knowledge about you via the cookies and browser history in your plastibrain.

Then, various strange changes will begin to happen - corporations, political parties and criminals will be able to gain lots of personal data from you via your interactions with your imaginary friend. It will get very convoluted.

There is more to discuss here than cognitive science and mysticism. Those issues may never be resolved, but look at what is coming socially - and soon.