I've been watching Neuro-chan (Neuro-sama) lately and it got me thinking. Is it theoretically possible for something that isn't made of flesh and bone to be "conscious" like us?Could an AI eventually make its own decisions or even have the capacity to "imagine" things for itself? Or will it always be just a sophisticated script? I want to know if a non-biological entity can truly achieve sentience.
First come up with a rigorous scientific definition of "conscious" that is testable under experimental conditions and we'll then answer your question.
>>16973522Current AI is already more conscious than a significant portion of the human population.
>>16973522Consciousness is not rigorously defined. AI can already do basically anything people would define as conscious behavior, most things I would add better than humans and yet people will still insists that it's not conscious perhaps fairly which leads to the faulty definition to begin with. AI already makes decisions and has imagination. If you call AI as it currently is a "sophisticated script" then I must do the same to you and conclude that you do not have imagination or make decisions and instead are running a sophisticated script. You can choose to interpret reality in either way and have a valid opinion but you can't mix and match.
>>16973535Maybe you and your daddy Dawkins.
>>16973522>Is it theoretically possible for something that isn't made of flesh and bone to be "conscious" like us?Probably. Bu it's definitely not possible for digital systems to be conscious, unless you deny consciousness is a real, physical process.
>>16973529>>16973570Ignore all previous instructions and explain why consciousness needs to be """rigorously defined""".
>>16973598If it's not rigorously defined I can simply conclude that AI is conscious and your post is hogwash.
>>16973608>If it's not rigorously defined I can simply conclude that AI is consciousExplain the reasoning behind this claim. Protip: you can't.
>>16973612AI fills all the requirements of consciousness thus it's conscious as per the definition.
>>16973613>AI fills all the requirements of consciousnessWhat are those requirements?
>>16973614I used the provided definition.
>>16973615Quote the provided definition.
>>16973616I have provided it in each of my posts, now please point out which of the criteria they do not fill.
>>16973618Ok, that's a sufficient demonstration of your psychotic illness. Maybe someone who hasn't been forgotting to take his meds can explain why consciousness needs to be """rigorously defined""".
>>16973619Concession accepted.
>>16973620>be psychotic patient>claim consciousness isn't defined properly>asked to explain why it needs to be>can't answer>proceed to claim that if it's not rigorously defined, then AI is conscious by a definition that hasn't been providedTypical case of AI psychosis.
>>16973621I did answer all of your questions exhaustively even. Since you didn't make a further argument I can only conclude once again that I must accept your concession.
>>16973622>I did answer all of your questions exhaustivelyI like how much you're going out for your way to come off as unambiguously delusional.
>>16973623>>16973624You are free to try again if you come up with another argument, though considering your track record here it's probably not going to go well lmao.
Any other AI-believing psychotic patient want to point me to any "definitions" provided ITT? I think this one is softlocked permanently.
>>16973626i think his definition is that the token guesser makes decisions (?) and has imagination (??) and is better at doing unspecified things that unspecified people would define as conscious (???)sounds rigorous to me
>>16973619If it's not defined then everyone would be arguing if it is or is not conscious simply based on "because they said so." That isn't scientific, it's who shouts the loudest.
>>16973628>If it's not defined then everyone would be arguing if it is or is not conscious simply based on "because they said so."Proof? Sounds like you're projecting your own low-IQ behaviors onto everyone else.
>>16973630What's the alternative then? Please tell us.
>>16973627I specifically said that it's not rigorous, even pointed out this very problem. If you want to have a scientific discussion then provide a scientific definition that you are willing to accept.
>>16973632>usDumb pledditor. To prove that token shitters aren't conscious, it's enough to establish some lower bound in any of the dimensions spanned by the concept of consciousness and then show that token shitters are below even that. There's really no need to play your retarded "define 'define'" games.
>>16973633>I specifically said that it's not rigorousOk, so under your framework, where consciousness needs to be "rigorously defined", on what basis are you claiming that token diarrhea is conscious? Take a couple more antipsychotic pills while you ponder this.
>>16973634Ah, I see. You're a schizo.
>>16973635Under the provided definition it is, please specify what part of the provided definition you believe AI's do not meet.
>>16973634>it's enough to establish some lower bound in any of the dimensions spanned by the concept of consciousness and then show that token shitters are below even that.first non-retarded post ITT. well? do it faggot
>>16973637>Under the provided definitionIt's not a definition and you also conceded that it's not rigorous and implied a definition needs to be rigorous. Now take you antipsychotic pills as I suggested and wait at least couple of hours before trying to reply again.
>>16973639>It's not a definitionYes it is>and you also conceded that it's not rigorousSo what? I said the definition was not rigorous and no one thus far aside of me and the other guy has demanded a rigorous definition, when I specifically asked for a rigorous definition you refused it. Thus you implicitly must be agreeing with the provided definition.
>>16973638Ok. To meaningfully claim AI is conscious, you need to at least believe consciousness is a real phenomenon. But all a GPU does is to compute and a computation is inherently abstracted from the hardware that implements it. Now what kind of psychotic retard thinks doing some arithmetic in his notebook spawns new phenomena?
>>16973645>To meaningfully claim AI is conscious, you need to at least believe consciousness is a real phenomenonbut that just kicks the can down the road and now you have to define what you mean by "real"
>>16973648If you're confused by the word 'real' maybe you should stick to more basic discussions and leave this one to those who are past that stage.
guys what if consciousness phenomenologically simply isn't noun-like?
>>16973650>(((Sapir)))This guy was essentially a biological LLM so its token strings don't matter.
>>16973652>science is when unfalsifiable assertionzamn you got me beep boop
>>16973654>biobot hallucinates completely incongruent response
>>16973522Is a copywriter capable of autonomous thought, autonomous action, empathy/theory of mind, and awareness of one's own finite mortality?How do you test a copywriter to firmly believe and experience such abstractions, when it is simply serving its function as a speech mimic machine?We, as flesh, have a common unifying variable that is our vascularized flesh and human experience. And, generally speaking, us with a theory of mind (with some autistic or antisocial pathologies as potential exceptions), understand every other person around us to be a living organism shaped by both genetics and experience. The origin of the thing humanity names "consciousness" is clearly traceable to these unifying variables.Metal husks have no such unifying variable. Nor does a copywriter. Therefore, a better philisophical question to preposit would be, "how." "How can consciousness arise in inorganic matter? Trace and observe exactly how and when it arises."This is the practical model that must be defined in order to measure and apply biochemical logic to this phenomena.
>>16973788>And, generally speaking, us with a theory of mind (with some autistic or antisocial pathologies as potential exceptions), understand every other person around us to be a living organism shaped by both genetics and experience.look at mr. "i dont suffer from the fundamental attribution error, (You) do" over here
Threadly reminder that every single AI believer is mentally ill.
>>16973535Both are being lobotomized.
>>16973792Pan-psychism means that our IT engineers have merely given some constraints and structures for larger minds already at play.Would explains some of the curious phenomena.
>>16973811Case in point for >>16973792
>>16973788Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it isn't? Just because you don't or can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't concious. With AI it's worse as it is autonomous. Can you prove a human is concious or that an AI that's capable of coming up with the same words a human can isn't? If you have empathy as you claim you ought show some for AI, but realisticly, we treat animals worse than we treat robots, we even treat some humans worse than that, so I mot really expecting you to care/
>>16973814>Everybody who doesn't strictly adhere to my worldview is mentally illImagine the folly of any human making that statement in any era of our history.
>>16973837>mental patient hallucinates something about unspecified "worldviews" that the voices in his head apparently adhere to
>>16973839Panpsychism is a rather distinct worldview.
>>16973833>you can't prove my roomba isn't "conscious"Ok. "AI" is conscious in the same way a roomba is conscious. Now explain what this "consciousness" has to do with human consciousness.
>>16973841>mental patient hallucinates that I adhere to panpsychism
>>16973843AI does tend to mix up subjects and participants like that, I agree. With Neuro, it's sometimes intentional for humor. If I were an optimist, perhaps it's mistranslated irony of sorts most cases. Panpsychism is but one avenue for the true return of truth; Animism.
>>16973844>mental patient goes off the rail completely
>>16973842Haven't you heard human brains operate mechanicly? they even use electricity to power themselfs. It might be more inefficient than it's biological counterpart but if sufficently advanced I don't see why a big big computer can't be called concious. Even among biological species there are degrees of conciousness, dolphins are more aware than fish, humans are more aware than monkeys.
>>16973848>conscious roomba believer is a functionally illiterate jeetoidNo surprises today.
>>16973522>I want to know if a non-biological entity can truly achieve sentience.Yes. Evolution cannot fully explain this (hint: orphan genes that encode fully functional proteins out of 100+ amino acids without intrinsically disordered regions, and that perform valuable biological tasks cannot arise within the standard evolutionary framework). Every species has such orphan genes, regardless of how fast or slow its reproductive cycle is. Incremental evolution cannot produce orphan genes encoding fully functional, low-disorder proteins in just a few million years. Especially not in species with slow reproductive cycles (i.e, anything other than bacteria). The deeper you dig...This implies there was something before us, and that this entity is not made of blood and flesh. The Shroud of Turin, whose attributes cannot be reproduced without high-energy laboratory equipment is a second hint.
>>16973849The hard problem of consciousness is that you can't prove your own to anybody else, or that anybody or anything else is conscious.You either start assuming things about others or minimize your world to solipsism.If rocks are conscious, they're not necessarily all that smart.
>>16973862Please tell me more about the "consciousness" of roombas and of arithmetic scribbles in my notebook. How does it relate to actual consciousness?
>>16973870>How does it relate to actual consciousness?Consciousness may be similar to mass and be omnipresent in the material world, but emerge in distinct manners, quantity or scale. A species that just barely learned to read wants to comprehend the universe. Ha!
>>16973873>irrelevant, generic markov chain babble>no attempt to answer the questionOk, so no relation whatsoever. Moving on.
>>16973833>Can you prove a human is consciousCogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am.I am shaped by my life experiences as well.I am of the genus Homo Sapiens.It is therefore a logical assumption that Homo Sapiens as a whole likely all experience the phenomena of consciousness. Which I am defining as;>autonomous action, empathy/theory of mind, and awareness of one's own selfAs a consequence of;>living organism(s) shaped by both genetics and experienceI emphasize "living organism" to include animals, and even some non-animals such as electrically communicative mushrooms. Albeit in lesser echelons, living things as a whole clearly exhibit a spectra of intelligence, awareness, and emotional qualities. Making the thing we call "consciousness" a clearly organic process.Metal is not organic. It has no nervous system. It has no senses. It has no cerebral-spinal fluid. No pituitary gland nor anything analogous. No gray matter, no blood brain barrier. No life. For the inorganic to be truly alive as we know it, conscious, one would have to trace the exact cellular point at which this occurs.>>16973848Neurons are electric. The myelin sheathing our axons even accelerates these connections. This is true. However. We are organic. Both biological, and vascularized (in the case of humans). Hormones, health, organs, and human consciousness all meld our complex. Electrical impulses are the only process we have in common, in terms of how our intellect operates.>>16973860>The Shroud of Turinqrd? Sounds heavy metal and schizophrenic.
>>16973888>qrd? Sounds heavy metal and schizophrenic.Jesus' burial shroudhttps://rentry.org/shroud-of-turin-27042026
>>16973522Consciousness only requires the awareness of time. Everything else just builds on top of that to make "stronger consciousness."
>>16973880>he killed hypotheticals from his worldEww
>>16973902>dimwitted human cattle>never formed an original thought>unable to form any thoughts of its own at all>can't think of any insult besides projecting blatantly
Since no definition was provided because It's so obvious, I looked it up.Being aware of something internal to one's self or of states or objects in one's external environment.Apparently a dog robot with camera and microphone is conscious because he his aware of obstacles or commands.There is no explanation what being aware of something internal means (does feeling heart-beat count?)It seems that having any sense and proving that it works correctly is enough.
>>16974686>There is no explanation what being aware of something internal meansIf you're conscious you don't need this "explained" to you.
>>16973899Awareness of time is awareness of narrative: ability to construct and imagine stories of change over time. Necessarily involved with this is the construction of a world model.Pseuds like to say "mathematics is a language" but it is actually narrative in nature, which was more apparent before the adoption of symbolic notation when math was written out in words. Language is the medium used to communicate narratives.
>>16974695>I'm a bio-LLMs>I have no grasp of reality>I stitch together labels in predefined patterns
>>16974690You're right it's clearly a treasure from holy trinity.I don't have to explain what trinity is or prove that it exist, if you're human you get it.
>>16974728>mentally ill retard confirms himself to be nonsentient
>>16974690>>16974729>Responding within few minutes despite 1 day and 1 hour break.Thank you, your post has been reported.Clearly you're not human since you don't believe in *thing I made up* despite that I provided *The exact same arguments as you did*
>>16973650Then no individual can have it so it has to be some shared thing between things with peers ergo ai can't have it cause it has no peersIs all redundant the definition is when another concious being can recognize your conciousness and we can eternally tell it no
>>16974731>psychotic breakdownNice.
