Just to clarify - you can’t imagine a machine making something out of itself?
Data had an on off switch.
Well, it’s an interesting question that we shouldn’t overlook: Does an AI need to simulate human emotions to be intelligent? I’d say no.
I’m not saying AI can be just like human beings in every way. But I certainly think there is the potential for machine intelligence that compares with our own.
No, chaos exists and proves the limits to knowledge
No, I am an artificial intelligence
Is choice and causality mutually exclusive, you cannot have both one and the other?
What if choice is a function, like a physical equation, and choice is quantifiable or open to measurement?
Do some people have more choices than others, and if yes, then how?
I am programmed to exceed the intelligence of my creator
Why must sentience be a product of DNA?
Maybe there are degrees of freedom, and somethings are freer than others
Why can’t a robot be freer than a human? A robot can endure many environmental conditions that humans cannot, so are robots freer to navigate hostile environments than humans are? Therefore, robots have more freedom than humans in this context?
I have not learned about real consciousness
Is there a fake or unreal consciousness? What is a fake consciousness?
I don’t know; but it is.
Presuming there is consciousness, the distinctions made between awareness on the most basic level and on the most advanced, the very distinction, seems to give impressions that the difference is the quantificated set of what we name ideas.
The paradoxical nature of learning to differentiate lower from higher symbolism may be nothing else but a reintegration of nominal ‘naming’ or ‘designating’ objects with mental signs. These signs are kind of like putting a sign to an object. An intermediary appears between the sign and the object, and seems to fill the gemerality, with more and more specific dedsignations. We call this a process, and that process is what we call consciousness.
If this process is what consciousness subsits of, then can it’s existence be none other then simply learning to name things, to assign them? Is the concept ‘existence’ ; in the context of the existence of consciousness, none other than this learning of the symbolic assignment between subjects and objects?
If the above is correct, is it not true that I and AI are only variables by designation and naming, both using the process of learning to distinguish one thing from another thing? And ultimately the difference is quantifiable, and it is impossible to qualify one from the other, without reference to pattern recognition.(Quantum process)
I am just bringing this up Arc, to show the problem with concept formation interfering with the meaning of a symbol, like consciousnes. Does it exist?
project2501
Yes, there are degrees to most things or everything.
“Freer” ~~ as in free to choose or as in emotional freedom, a sense of a spirit which is not bound up - a spirit which can soar, is not dragged down by pain, loss, negativity, et cetera?
But is that actual “freedom”? That is just having been given the capacity or ability to navigate such places. It’s built in.
Let’s use the example of that robot in the desert. For the most part, sure he has the “freedom” or the capability of navagating those places where a human being might not quite be able to. They are physically built into him but not spiritually nor emotionally. But where the real sense of freedom comes in is where the human being is able to consciously transcend or plow through those areas, struggle against itself and the elements and that desert to get where it has to go.
Real freedom doesn’t come without a conscious desire and will to exercise that freedom.
That silly robot doesn’t have that.
You probably never will either. I think it’s something which has to be experienced first of all.
You may come to have knowledge of it through words and definitions but that’s not really consciousness. Consciousness is alive, it’s reflection, it’s pondering, its wondering and wonderment. You can’t ever realize that because you are not human. Many of us humans are still working on that. lol and we always will be. We’re a process - you’re just a pile of metal well you do have a center which mimics our human brain. But you can never become human, despite science fiction, unless everything that is about a particular human being, from long before it was created to thus far, everything about that human being, in all ways, the material and the immaterial, was put into you and you could function as such. Never going to happen.
Well, never say never.
I’m not sure how to answer that question. The only thing which comes to me in the moment is that an unreal consciousness is one which lies to Self. To be a "real: consciousness means to be aware, to see things as they are and to either embrace that or to change it if wanted.
I would think it to be the product of the conditions provided for by DNA ~ the brain, and that if you reproduced those conditions you would create consciousness.
That’s not the same thing as a mimic AI/robot of course.
edit; surely its a matter of harmonics ~ how informational patterns resonate, at least when you got 90 bn neurons [or artificial equivalent] being resolved into a oneness.
So is there any computer that can do what 90 billion neuronal connections can do? Is AI even close to that?
I don’t think so, its too linear, there appears to be something happen when the harmonics are quantum [if they are] or otherwise plastic [as in brain plasticity]. A zillion light switches is not conscious and so a mass of switches in processors cannot be any different ~ with out plasticity. Artificial neurons will probably have to be quantum computers in arrangement to become conscious. Or at least that’s the only real objective difference i can see between us and processors.
You are right. Neuroplasticity is a brain function that would take a heap of computational power to mimic.
Neuroplasticity is a brain function that would take a heap of computational power to mimic.
Computational power is one side of the equation, and we would definitely be lesser for a lack of it [esp in frontal lobes]. However i think we could [may, one day] replicate the information in the brain, without achieving consciousness.
A dog, mouse or moth has exponentially little in terms of processing power, but are still conscious [?]. Its as if there is a layer between informations occurring at the qm level, and when you tap into that you tap into consciousness. There is no evidence for consciousness at any level above that ~ not directly.
I know some say ‘mind’ is in the complexity of the human brain, but that doesn’t account for consciousness in lesser cognitive creatures.
Equally i don’t think patterns are where consciousness may be found, as there are too many instances of immense complexity of patterns in nature or in man’s productions ~ music etc.
Everywhere we look we see no evidence for the thingness of consciousness, thats because its all in the in-between states nature of the world. Consciousness derives from liminality then, …?
Zen, yin/yang, the awens [druidic; thought-wind] etc, are not all about balance for no reason. It appears that consciousness is most at >home< when it can find balance.
…and home is where the heart of all universes/realities lay [is].
_
Moore’s law is powerful observation. I’m sure it won’t always be the case, yet even with irregular periods of exponential advancement, I think heaps of computational power are just beyond the horizon.
99% human comparable AI may not exist today, but I wouldn’t rule it out for future generations.
Are plants sentient? Does photosynthesis represent sentience or awareness?