Would an AI unit, with a quantum brain, be more conscious than a Human if

[Fliption]

Perhaps I have something in common with a monk, in that I think you can only understand some things if you see them for yourself.

All understanding happens this way. There is no other alternative. What does this have to do with explaining things clearly or not?

I'm not making it simpler, I'm just dismissing it.

But you're simplifying it to justify the dismissal of it.

I don't understand why we should be debating the meaning of the word 'liar'. I told you it was crazy stuff, so just pretend I didn't say it. It's not essential to this discussion.

Sorry, I wasn't debating it with you. I was just stating it so that we could both make sure we were defining it the same way. I'm having to be very careful when responding to you because the wrong word or phrase can send us into irrelevant territory. Based on the definition of liar I agree that there are some. But surely, all scientists aren't. Earlier you said they all were so I wanted to make we defined it the same.

What's with this "illustrate" thing you keep bringing up? You talk as if I haven't lived with my conscious mind for my entire life. What is there about my own consciousness which you think I don't understand?

You seem to think it's the same thing as the word 'beautiful'. You do understand that consciousness is a noun and not an adjective don't you?

How exactly would your understanding of anything change if you could answer that question? In other words, what other questions do you have whose answers depend on knowing the answer to that particular question? If you meet God today and He tells you, "yes, trees experience the wind", or "no, trees do not experience anything", how would that particular piece of knowledge fit with everything else you know?

You already know the answer to this because you say it below. If I could know this then it would say something about consciousness that currently can't be said. And that is that consciousness would be objectively knowable and subject to scientific investigation. That's a big implication.

(I'll concede that none of this would be the case if god told me that trees were conscious. It wouldn't be as meaningful to have the knowlegde devinely given. The whole question is whether consciousness is objectively knowable.)

You probably think I'm being cryptic, but I'm just trying to show you that you are asking a question that lacks meaning. You think the question can't be answered because consciousness is a diffcult problem, but to me the reason is far more mundane: when talking about trees, the concept of experience has no meaning. You can't say trees have experiences, and you can't say they don't. Just as you can't say whether trees are violent, romantic, whimsical, and so many other concepts. Do you think a tree has a sense of humour?

The question does not lack meaning. As I said above, the words beauty, being romantic, having a sense of humor are all adjectives. They are subjective descriptors of experience. They have no meaning from an objective perspective. But consciousness is a common thing that we all share, right? It is a noun. The fact that we experience anything at all is itself an objective thing. But yet it isn't subject to scientific reductive explanation. So perhaps is isn't reducable? But surely its existence is more absolute than "beauty".

I could give you the same answer I did before, but then you would come back and tell me redness has nothing to do with it.

And it wouldn't. It's not about the specfiic experience. It's about experience period.

But it absolutely doesn't follow from it that the experience of redness has nothing to do the physical process of seeing red. And it doesn't follow from it that there's more to experiencing red than the physical processes associated with the way humans experience red.

But it is a strong indicator. Especially as more and more time goes by and science continues to fail.

Do you realize that the word 'robot' already implies absence of experience?

Here's the definition I found. Pretty much what I was referring to.

1. A mechanical device that sometimes resembles a human and is capable of performing a variety of often complex human tasks on command or by being programmed in advance.
2. A machine or device that operates automatically or by remote control.

The short answer is 'yes', because language is one of two criteria we use to establish consciousness in people. The other is behaviour.

I'm not talking about establishing consciousness. I'm talking about having consciousness. I don't believe language has anything to do with that.

When I copied your quote above, I accidentally deleted one of the letters, so I had to type it back. I know which letter it is, and I know you can't possibly know. Even if I tell you, you'd have no way to know if I'm telling the truth. In fact, you do not even have a way to know if I'm not lying about replacing a letter to start with. Some imbroglio!

You don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood? You think its relevance is equivalent to you re-typing a letter in your posts? Hmmm better go take those pills.

 

[confutatis]

You don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood?

No, I don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood.

 

[Fliption]

No, I don't think the fact that humans are conscious is something that ought to be understood.

OK. Then will you allow those of who do to discuss it without the crypic insertions?

Otherwise, you need to clearly explain why you believe this aspect of reality should be ignored.

 

[confutatis]

OK. Then will you allow those of who do to discuss it without the crypic insertions?

I'm quite amused that you are absolutely incapable of understanding metaphors, and as a result call them cryptic. I suppose you are one of those people who never get the point of jokes.

Yeah, I know... what do jokes have to do with anything? Exactly!

Otherwise, you need to clearly explain why you believe this aspect of reality should be ignored.

Read Marion's paper. It's as "uncryptic" as it gets.

 

[Fliption]

I'm quite amused that you are absolutely incapable of understanding metaphors, and as a result call them cryptic. I suppose you are one of those people who never get the point of jokes.

Yeah, I know... what do jokes have to do with anything? Exactly!

Your characterization of me couldn't be more wrong. I'm just unamused with pretentious half answers which attempt to sound "wise". I don't have a lot of time for that and would rather not see such unproductive posts.

Read Marion's paper. It's as "uncryptic" as it gets.

Lol. Marion who?

 

[confutatis]

Your characterization of me couldn't be more wrong.

Of course not, from your perspective.

I'm just unamused with pretentious half answers which attempt to sound "wise".

You don't have be be jealous. One day you will become wise too.

I don't have a lot of time for that and would rather not see such unproductive posts.

Well, just don't read them then. No one is forcing you.

Lol. Marion who?

Oh boy...

 

[Rader]

Lol. Marion who?

Meet Marion
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=21664

 

[Fliption]

Of course not, from your perspective.

My own use of metaphors is an objective fact. It has nothing to do with perspective.

You don't have be be jealous. One day you will become wise too.

LOl. What would I possibly have to be jealous of? Wisdom is not speaking a bunch of garbage that no one understands and then shrugging as to why no one understands it. Wisdom does not ignore most of the relevant points only to respond to a few silly sentences. Brevity with little content is an indicator that one doesn't have any content to add.

This old saying says it all:

"It is the wise man who admits he knows nothing,while a fool think he knows it all."

Well, just don't read them then. No one is forcing you.

Unfortunately, I can't force all those other people participating from reading it and railroading the thread into what appears to be a useless outlet for ego stroking.

Oh boy..

My comment was not meant to ask who Marion was. I was illustrating the point that you assume things about what other people know when you post your responses. You are too brief in your explanations and assume people know what you're talking about. it has been a problem for me trying to understand you from the beginning. It's just some constructive criticism. Take it or leave it. I can only guess that this approach will continue to cause you trouble with others in this forum. Of course this criticism only matters to people who are here to either learn or teach. Iit doesn't matter much to people who are here to preach and impress themselves with their sermons.

 

[confutatis]

"It is the wise man who admits he knows nothing, while a fool think he knows it all."

I wish I could reply to your post without talking about myself, but talking about myself doesn't happen to be one my favourite subjects. Sorry about that.

Can you comment on Gothier's paper? That could make for interesting conversation.

 

[Fliption]

I wish I could reply to your post without talking about myself, but talking about myself doesn't happen to be one my favourite subjects. Sorry about that.

Can you comment on Gothier's paper? That could make for interesting conversation.

Yes, I've read it once and will read it again before I develop an opinion.

 

[Rader]

So the red mans verdict is: on quote:

I rest my case! Any machine capable of organizing information will, when it achieves the ability to present the gist of it's information, will claim to be consciously aware of what is going on.

Curious how the change of one word to this statement, describes what actually goes on in the human body and outside it.
I rest my case! Any particle capable of organizing information will, when it achieves the ability to present the gist of it's information, will claim to be consciously aware of what is going on.

 

[confutatis]

So the red mans verdict is: on quote:

I rest my case! Any machine capable of organizing information will, when it achieves the ability to present the gist of it's information, will claim to be consciously aware of what is going on.

I think I would agree with the red man in that any entity whose behaviour can only be described as "conscious" would certainly claim to be conscious. It is exactly the same reason we claim we are conscious, and it has nothing to do with some unspeakable tingling feeling in the head.

 

[Al]

Sorry, but doesn't it implies that conciousness is an illusion and that we (1st person obsrevers of the universe) don't exist? Where to put Descarte's cogito ergo sum, then?

 

[confutatis]

Sorry, but doesn't it implies that conciousness is an illusion and that we (1st person obsrevers of the universe) don't exist?

No, it only implies that you learn what consciousness is by observing your own behaviour, rather than by introspection.

There are aspects of consciousness which can't possibly be expressed with language; we can't talk about those aspects without contradicting ourselves, but that is not the same thing as denying they exist.

Where to put Descarte's cogito ergo sum, then?

Side by side with Wittgenstein's "wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber mu man schweigen", often translated as "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent".

 

[Al]

Sorry if I missteped, I was only looking for wisdom, not confrontation and even less sarcasm.

 

[confutatis]

Sorry if I missteped, I was only looking for wisdom, not confrontation and even less sarcasm.

You came to the wrong place. If you want wisdom, join a monastery! And if you want an intellectual discussion, do not act like a spoiled child when your views are confronted!

I don't think you want wisdom at all, you just want to hear things you like, and dismiss things you don't like as sarcasm. That's not wisdom, that's just intellectual narcissism.

 

[Fliption]

Sorry if I missteped, I was only looking for wisdom, not confrontation and even less sarcasm.

Welcome to the forums AI. Don't worry about confutatis. He treats everyone just as poorly. Mostly it is friendly around here

 

[Rader]

Sorry, but doesn't it implies that conciousness is an illusion and that we (1st person obsrevers of the universe) don't exist? Where to put Descarte's cogito ergo sum, then?

There are three arrows to measure existence, chronological, cosmological, physiological. There is a forth, consciousnes, which makes us aware of the other three, does it need the other three? How can the other three have evolved if the last was not first?

 

[Al]

OK, i realize my first post may have sounded presumptous, which was not the intention. I apologize. But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

 

[Rader]

OK, i realize my first post may have sounded presumptous, which was not the intention. I apologize. But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

You are not being very clear here. Are saying that you know a neurobiologist or two, that says that they are not conscious? Then they would be Zombies, personally I have never meet one. Now if the neurobiologist, is talking about other people, has he seen people walking around like Zombies, my only expereience is in the movies.

From my personal experience, I am conscious and from what you say you are to, so who cares if the neurobiologists are not.

Consciousness is no illusion if you experience it.

 

[Fliption]

OK, i realize my first post may have sounded presumptous, which was not the intention. I apologize. But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

I understand what you're saying. You aren't the only one who has trouble. I always thought an illusion was a conscious activity so to call consciousness an illusion seems like begging the question.

 

[confutatis]

But the question was honest, as I have heard the illusion argument from more than one neurobiologist and I find hard to accept that conciousness doesn't exist since I experience it. They explain conciousness as perception-memory interaction, yet I have still trouble with the subjectivity.

I wonder what I might have said that made you think I deny that consciousness exists. People certainly behave in conscious ways, so in order to assert that 'consciousness' doesn't exist we need to provide another explanation to what we describe as conscious behaviour.

As to subjectivity, it should be clear to anyone that it has nothing to do with consciousness. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this. I can look at someone and assert if they are conscious or not solely on the basis of their behaviour, but I have no access whatsoever to their subjectivity. Of course it is true that one needs to be conscious in order to have subjectivity, but one also needs to be conscious in order to win a chess match, and no one goes around claiming consciousness has anything to do with chess.

And I definitely don't think our subjective experiences can be classified as illusions, since even illusions are subjective experiences. The central issue is, is experience an extra component to physical reality, something which exists independently of the physical world, or is it just a different perspective on the world? In other words, is your experience of the world somehow separated from the world itself, or is it just a subset of it?