Essentia Foundation
Part 9 of Essentia Foundation’s and Keytoe Academy’s joint course on analytic idealism and its implications.
Source
AI and producing consciousness
Similar Posts
“Jingle Bells” Arr. Andy Clark, performed by Gilbert H. Hood Middle School Jazz Band
Intro Video
Steven Pinker and Robert Pippin Pt. 1 – Human Rights and the Humanities Conference March 21, 2014
19 thoughts on “AI and producing consciousness”
Comments are closed.
If either our ancestors or our descendants learned how to manifest a chosen "reality" we could be them. Projecting consciousness becomes more "real" to us over time and here we are.
I haven't seen Einstein but
I have seen Bernardo. 😮❤
I can imagine a court of law deciding that some AI is conscious and has rights. This could be a dilemma – how many votes would an AI get? One per core or maybe one per thread? I hope the AI is not making the choice, but I suppose a non-sentient AI would be far better than the average voter. 😉
Plot twist, next iMac model made with features so that it pees on your desk.
One bizzare effect of he assumption computers can be conscious is: when you switch them off for the night, do they die and the next morning when you switch them back on again is there a new "personality" or "I" in your computer? Or is it the same that wakes up again? If one can not argue safely for the one or the other than clearly one has no clue what that "I" of the computer is supposed to be and how it came there in the first place.
You can simulate water and get wet. You just have to connect your mind with simulator.
On the latter part, a kidney can be simulated in a computer and yet its extreme microcosm and macrocosm would be data limited, compared to the actual reality that is fractal (i.e. Mandelbrot Set), therefore, incongruent.
A human in a moderate view seems to be conscious and intelligent. When zoomed in then it'd be reduced to mechanical parts. While zoomed out it seems that it is a speck of dust in space. And when zoomed in the maximal state would seem like our quantum parts are in a state of volatility, like a human with severe ADHD.
I also visualize that quantas at their individuality are conscious BUT are they powerful enough to lead themselves at a higher scale? If not then we must observe the consensus of those individual parts converge into a superorganism that through repetitive trial & error via eons of cyclic evolution should perfect its patterning until it's capable of deliberate intelligent co-creation.
We can compare this in sort of scale-invariant thinking by comparing it to our society's hierarchy wherein the lower classes co-sustain the higher classes, while the higher classes manage the lower classes, and yet the higher classes won't be able to exist without sequestering the meager resources of the collective individual lower classes. And through a ballpark analysis in general, the lower you are in the hierarchy, the lower your energy resource is, thus, the lower your productivity rate; unless it has chosen to specialize. Whilst the higher class may have a higher energy resource, thus, when in a self-efficient state it should be capable of system thinking like the pseudo-freewill of what humanity, in general, has since we are in the middle scale of the micro and macrocosm. Some phenomena exist though, like the lower social class geniuses that could be energy focused on a certain area while lacking on most of their life.
Thinking in dynamical feedback loops that could black swan despite its automaton properties, granted this reality is sustained by consciousness must be the paradigm shift.
Another thing that we could ponder about is how quantas could be developed by maximizing their experience, and allow them to maximize their energy processing rate, therefore making them highly conscious, efficient and stable since they are guided by an efficient leader/system despite their important automaton jobs.
It seems to me absurd to say that because amoebas are moist carbon lifeforms then it is reasonable that they are conscious, but machines are silicon so they are not. The fact that it happens in nature doesn't mean that only carbon lifeforms can be conscious. This is very flawed reasoning in my opinion.
Surely one of the worlds finest minds. Beautiful.
In short…A.I doesn't need to be conscious.
The realization that AI is not conscious, and that "simualtions" are subjective manipulations of symbols is what opened me up to the idea that consciousness is fundamental! That and Chalmers
Going from a brain to a bacterium is just as riddiculous as going from a brain to a silicone chip. It's not about if the computer actually peed on your desk, but if it felt like it did.
If everything is mind, why can’t a computer be conscious?
From a physicalist perspective there is a clear failure to explain how mind comes from non-mind
But if it’s all mind? Why assume only carbon based life can be conscious?
Bernado, your intellect is mind numbing! An asset to humanity!
consciousness is a kind of IA (intelligent algorithms), our internal organ is an example of IA 'know' how to stay alive, our gland is also an IA object know it self to produce the hormones if the organs being transfer from a host to other host the IA property is also attached..
the AI is really depend to the 'algorithm that intelligent people who programming the AI system' and the intelligent people also much depends on the IA that make live..😊
non living things can also have IA such as haunted house, voodoo dolls, amulet, talisman etc, is covid virus has 'consciousness' which can search the target to be infected since it is nano particles that so much easy to 'program'..
As a computer scientists myself, I always found the idea that machines could be conscious amusing. I think it is akin of the so called cargo cult, in a sense that people who do not really know how technology works at a fundamental level think that technology can be made conscious.
It is possible to fool a person that a machine is conscious, but it is only an illusion, a machine is a piece of rock that is programmed to respond to certain inputs, no matter how complex.
The idea of inherently dead machines fooling people with serious consequences is quiet horrifyingly interesting, a good example is in the film Ex Machina. In essence, it is not machines fooling people, but humans fooling themselves, similar to how humans in pagan religions fooled themselves of believing in conscious pagan statue gods.
I don't know who was putting forth that straw argument.
While I have recently started to educate myself on the ideas of analytic idealism/nonduality/etc. and agree with the 'universal consciousness' concept, the reasoning presented in this video does not at all appear logical to me. Why would a bacterium have subjective experience, just because it is carbon-based, warm, moist, and has a metabolism? Which of these descriptors is the mechanism that creates subjective experience? According to (my interpretation of) Bernardo, 'life' seems to be the requirement for conscious experience, so I wonder, what would be the barrier to life? Why can a silicon-based computer not be considered life? The way I see it, the brain, on its most fundamental level, also operates with electric fields and 'switches', albeit of another kind than those found in computers. I do somewhat agree with the idea that (contemporary) computers do not have subjective experience to the degree that we would call them 'conscious', but I think the reason for this is probably due to the structure of their information processing and maybe the (comparatively) large space they inhabit for that information processing to occur. Also, I do not believe we have anything close to empirical evidence to believe this would be different for bacteria. If I misunderstood his points, please somebody enlighten me.