How do you know you are not "A.I."?

[Papoon]

Really? Electrons going through logic circuits can create an entity that experiences subjectively as a single conscious entity beyond the sum of its inanimate parts? It would require some magical step. Think about it a bit.

Hypothetical -

Assuming that you are right and that there is an aspect of subjective experiencing which transcends the specificities of form - what is the argument against this transcendent reality being self aware in an electronic system ?

 

[atanu]

I do believe that artificial intelligence that is equal to humans in all respects of consciousness, ----.

Good that you believe.

 

[atanu]

That's your opinion. I've seen nothing about it that requires magic. And frankly your whole objection seems like an argument from incredulity. Whether the 'logic circuits' are made of metal or neurons, and the current electricity or electrochemical, there is no 'certain something' shown to exist in human consciousness which couldn't be attainable through a mechanical structure besides the brain.

We used to think it would take a magical leap for computers to best humans at chess, now computers can beat the best chess masters. No magic required.

But humans programmed that computer, feeding it with rules. Furthermore, you still require your own consciousness to know that a computer has beaten a human.

I can definitely see a white bearded man who programmed us guffawing high up there.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Good that you believe.

I'm not allergic to the term 'belief,' but I still think my belief is founded upon evidence.

But humans programmed that computer, feeding it with rules.

And the organic 'computer' was programmed by millions of years of natural selection. No man in the sky required.
But really, this is very off topic for the thread. Can we make a new one for this topic if you really want to discuss it?

 

[Ouroboros]

But humans programmed that computer, feeding it with rules. Furthermore, you still require your own consciousness to know that a computer has beaten a human.

Ultimately, neurons follow physical and chemical rules. If we would exactly replicate a neuron, biologically or electronically, wouldn't matter, but if we made a thing that worked exactly like the neuron does, and then made a couple of billions of them and connected them all. Would that have a chance of becoming conscious?

The interesting thing with some of AI research is actually replicating some parts of how neurons work. If you ever heard the term "Neural Net", that's what they're referring to. It's been used in real-life applications since 70's.

 

[ThirtyThree]

Actually it rather is, that's why it took people much smarter and craftier than you and I a long time to manage it. Please don't insult their achievements with 'no big deal' when you don't even understand what goes into it.


You assume, without any particularly good reason to.


You already know that I do not and will not work from the unfounded assumption that there are 'souls' or substance dualism. But even if I did, I also have no reason to believe some such 'soul' couldn't exist tethered to inanimate objects, as they do in many faiths outside yours, and give those objects some sort of 'life.' But I've already explained many times why I don't believe, and don't reason, that there's any such reason to believe in substance dualism or consciousness that is unreliant on brain matter or unique to organic life even.

My last post (because again this is wildly off topic for this thread) will be these videos, which explain further:

In regard to the video on dualism, did anyone notice how the main argument is completely flawed? How can anyone discern that consciousness can not exist beyond death, if measurement of consciousness depends on anything expressed by the physical body? You can not measure consciousness separate of the body by looking at visual or other brain received data. It just makes no sense!

 

[George-ananda]

Hypothetical -

Assuming that you are right and that there is an aspect of subjective experiencing which transcends the specificities of form - what is the argument against this transcendent reality being self aware in an electronic system ?

Well that would indeed be mysterious and someone may propose such a theory, and I'll listen. My position (based on evidence from 'beyond the normal' human experiences dovetailing with the teachings of eastern/Indian spiritual masters) is that in living things the 'transcending' elements are part and parcel of the entity from the beginning. Consciousness is fundamental and preceeds the existence of the form and that matter can never produce consciousness by gaining greater and greater complexity.

 

[George-ananda]

Ultimately, neurons follow physical and chemical rules. If we would exactly replicate a neuron, biologically or electronically, wouldn't matter, but if we made a thing that worked exactly like the neuron does, and then made a couple of billions of them and connected them all. Would that have a chance of becoming conscious?

Speaking for myself the answer would be 'no'. Consciousness requires non-physical elements also. Consciousness in eastern thought is something fundamental and not created by the movement of matter.

 

[Ouroboros]

Speaking for myself the answer would be 'no'. Consciousness requires non-physical elements also. Consciousness in eastern thought is something fundamental and not created by the movement of matter.

But that consciousness can attach to something physical, like our brain, can it not? So what's so special about our physical brain that this non-physical consciousness can only attach to only that?

Put it this way, if we were able to take atoms at will and put them anywhere we wanted, and we built a brain with the exact same composition and structure like a person's brain, could that exact physical copy be able to be conscious or is there some other unknown factor here at play that only allows consciousness to get into a brain that has been born through another human being?

 

[George-ananda]

But that consciousness can attach to something physical, like our brain, can it not? So what's so special about our physical brain that this non-physical consciousness can only attach to only that?

Put it this way, if we were able to take atoms at will and put them anywhere we wanted, and we built a brain with the exact same composition and structure like a person's brain, could that exact physical copy be able to be conscious or is there some other unknown factor here at play that only allows consciousness to get into a brain that has been born through another human being?

Well, in a human it is more involved than physical matter and fundamental consciousness. There are also 'subtle' layers of matter involved that transmit and receive subtle vibrations and prana energy, astral matter, chakra points, an individual soul. A man is atma encased in five sheaths in Hindu thought.

The five sheaths (pancha-kosas) are described in the Taittiriya Upanishad.[2] From gross to fine they are:

1. Annamaya kosha, "foodstuff" sheath (Anna)
2. Pranamaya kosha, "energy" sheath (Prana/apana)
3. Manomaya kosha "mind-stuff" sheath (Manas)
4. Vijnanamaya kosha, "wisdom" sheath (Vijnana)
5. Anandamaya kosha, "bliss" sheath (Ananda)

So sheath 1, Annamayakosha (the dense physical body) alone would not be capable of consciousness

 

[George-ananda]

In regard to the video on dualism, did anyone notice how the main argument is completely flawed? How can anyone discern that consciousness can not exist beyond death, if measurement of consciousness depends on anything expressed by the physical body? You can not measure consciousness separate of the body by looking at visual or other brain received data. It just makes no sense!

Plus I pointed out in another thread the presenter shows no discussion of eastern/Indian thought on consciousness nor discussion of serious paranormal investigations. He was keeping it inside the box he was comfortable and knowledgeable with.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, in a human it is more involved than physical matter and fundamental consciousness. There are also 'subtle' layers of matter involved that transmit and receive subtle vibrations and prana energy, astral matter, chakra points, an individual soul. A man is atma encased in five sheaths in Hindu thought.

So these subtle layers of matter can only exist in human brains? When do they enter the human brain and how?

The five sheaths (pancha-kosas) are described in the Taittiriya Upanishad.[2] From gross to fine they are:

1. Annamaya kosha, "foodstuff" sheath (Anna)
2. Pranamaya kosha, "energy" sheath (Prana/apana)
3. Manomaya kosha "mind-stuff" sheath (Manas)
4. Vijnanamaya kosha, "wisdom" sheath (Vijnana)
5. Anandamaya kosha, "bliss" sheath (Ananda)

So sheath 1, Annamayakosha (the dense physical body) alone would not be capable of consciousness

Even if the dense physical body can't alone be capable of consciousness, yet it is. So the thing that makes it conscious is replicated in every child that is born. The child is born based on biological, physical, chemical, and natural reasons and phenomenon. The consciousness enters the baby one way or another, from a dualist view or a monist view, still it becomes active at some point, in that physical body. If someone recreated exactly that same biological and physical conditions for an synthetic baby that is exactly a replicate to the sub-atomic level, you're saying that this entity can't become conscious because of a subtle layer of matter. But if we replicate the subtle layer of matter as well, then, can it still not become conscious?

 

[George-ananda]

So these subtle layers of matter can only exist in human brains? When do they enter the human brain and how?


Even if the dense physical body can't alone be capable of consciousness, yet it is. So the thing that makes it conscious is replicated in every child that is born. The child is born based on biological, physical, chemical, and natural reasons and phenomenon. The consciousness enters the baby one way or another, from a dualist view or a monist view, still it becomes active at some point, in that physical body. If someone recreated exactly that same biological and physical conditions for an synthetic baby that is exactly a replicate to the sub-atomic level, you're saying that this entity can't become conscious because of a subtle layer of matter. But if we replicate the subtle layer of matter as well, then, can it still not become conscious?

These subtle bodies precede and develop with the baby. The soul (sheath 5 in that list) exists before the baby. These subtle elements and their development are not part of the synthetic creation.

 

[viole]

Because I don't believe A.I. can experience emotions. A.I. is reducible to electrons following logic circuits with no ability to experience the big picture. A.I is just unfeeling parts.

An ant colony is also made of ants that have no idea about complex organizations. And computers can predict the weather even though the single transistors they are made of cannot.

I think you are committing the contrary of the composition fallacy. Properties of the whole do not necessarily require the same properties for its constituents. Even under the reductionist assumption.

Ciao

- viole

 

[atanu]

Ultimately, neurons follow physical and chemical rules. If we would exactly replicate a neuron, biologically or electronically, wouldn't matter, but if we made a thing that worked exactly like the neuron does, and then made a couple of billions of them and connected them all. Would that have a chance of becoming conscious?

Do the neurons know that you are trying to replicate them?? Take care. Let us keep it secret from them.

 

[George-ananda]

An ant colony is also made of ants that have no idea about complex organizations. And computers can predict the weather even though the single transistors they are made of cannot.

I think you are committing the contrary of the composition fallacy. Properties of the whole do not necessarily require the same properties for its constituents. Even under the reductionist assumption.

Sure it is possible that there is some major step we don't know about yet. But from my study of 'beyond the normal' phenomena and the teachings of eastern spiritual traditions I believe we an explanation of consciousness already available to us (that includes elements not detectable though with physical senses and instruments).

 

[Ouroboros]

These subtle bodies precede and develop with the baby. The soul (sheath 5 in that list) exists before the baby. These subtle elements and their development are not part of the synthetic creation.

So it's kind'a like an energy or force that exists in parallel with the physical?

 

[Ouroboros]

Do the neurons know that you are trying to replicate them?? Take care. Let us keep it secret from them.

New moving coming out: "The Revenge of the Killer Neurons." They say the movie is so good that it will blow everyone's mind.

 

[George-ananda]

So it's kind'a like an energy or force that exists in parallel with the physical?

The subtle bodies are matter at a dimensional (more than our familiar three-dimensions) and vibrational level not directly detectable by our grosser physical senses and instruments. The astral and mental matter actually interpenetrate the physical body (and actually leave the body in sleep and permanently at death).

 

[Ouroboros]

The subtle bodies are matter at a dimensional (more than our familiar three-dimensions) and vibrational level not directly detectable by our grosser physical senses and instruments. The astral and mental matter actually interpenetrate the physical body (and actually leave the body in sleep and permanently at death).

And this astral and mental "matter" (matter might be the wrong word since it usually refers to actual physical matter) can only interpenetrate biological bodies?