Sorry, I must have read it wrong. Now it says 102531.
It must be a site software problem. 
A machine problem. 
Now it is 102552.
Then I ask you, Anomaleigh: Do you think that machines will completely replace all human beings?
I know that we already had this discussion in this thread, but my question is again: How can we currently know for sure that they are already conscious to a small degree?
Define “consciousness”. Look at the exact details required of something for it to be called “conscious”. Once seen in concept, they can be seen right in front of you.
Being aware or conscious of thoughts or knowledge is already a tautological description, because if you know that there are thoughts or knowledge, then you also know that there is a consciousness.
True, thus would make a poor definition. Get an exacting unambiguous, informative, meaningful definition.
As you know, I define it as:
Consciousness == The property of remote recognition.
Yes, I know.
Does that not move the discussion to the definition of recognition?
Is a television conscious? A radio-controlled car? A heat-seeking missile?
Yes, at least partially.
A televison is not conscious, a radio-controlled car is not conscious, a heat-seeking missile is not conscious; but what about certain machines with an artificial intelligence?
James, how do You understand remote recognition? As a pre thought -verbal recognition at and before the limit of sensation, as in a primary process, or with a conceptual inclusion sans some elements which can differentiate between human beings and animals?
“Recognition” is easy to define:
An example of remote recognition in mechanisms would be the little android that hears a voice, identifies it as the young girl, turns in her direction, and says, “Good morning, Pretty”.
If I may answer:
Hearing a voice is already a remote recognition because of the relatively remote distance between the perceiving one and the perceived one. If that distance is relatively near(by / close), then it is not a remote recognition. The question is just what “relatively” means in this case.
Thanks for that, part I understand. But could you elaborate, as to how is ‘conscious-ness’ a defining entity, within in the relative remote recognition concept? I would guess, it has to do with limits somehow?
When I said “remote recognition”, I didn’t mean far remote. Actually any distance beyond direct touching would count as being conscious of the entity.
To sense being touched is different than sensing what is doing the touching. An ice cube could touch a thermostat and the thermostat would respond. But would the thermostat be able to distinguish that ice cube from a cold piece of metal? Not likely.
A conscious recognition involves an identification process such as would distinguish various possible items responsible for the sensations involved. To be conscious is to be conscious of something.
A simple PC can identify which kind of printer, modem, mouse, or monitor that gets plugged into it. Along with the identification comes an understanding of how to communicate with that particular item. If the PC cannot recognize the device, it cannot know how to communicate with it. To a small degree, that is a mechanism being conscious of its peripheral surroundings. And even though those particular items require touch (such as a USB connector), what is being recognized, is not the touch, but the item doing the touching even though the whole item didn’t touch the PC. That is also what I mean by “remote recognition”. The item is being recognized as a particular type of item causing the sensation. The PC is conscious only to the degree that it can identify items around it by their affects upon it.
I don’t think that I understand the question. Conscious-ness is a property of something/one, like redness or largeness. Consciousness is not a thing, but a property of a thing. Being conscious is a state of being and a process, like being noisy or being smart. Being conscious is an active process.
What do you think about that limits? Where (in which realm) can they be found?
Two things are required: (1) something like a sense for perceiving, (2) something like a nerve system for interpreting what is perceived.
And if it reacted in merely one way, thus always in the same way, in the manner of a simple stimulus-response model?
James,
Does the tv remote have consciousness, James? 
In fact James’response clarified it somewhat. The limits of understanding, in this mode, depend on sense data, including all aspects of sensation. I immediately associated primary association with seeing, and the fact that tactual, identification is included, brings forth the idea of non distinctive and remote identification which is probable and likely as in the thermodynamic example given by James.
Visual identification, and limits are in the Leibnitzian sense is a question of discernibility, whereas indescernibles are proximal lay beyond a limit. This is where that is coming from, and a calculus seems involved. But does such calculus embide within a tactual awareness? Say in an example where a heat source is proximally brought closer to a metallic object, is there a point where changes in shape and size can be measured in a metal, given the specifications? And can not that change be measured as a direct algebraic relationship, rather then a more
complex calculation?