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

[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?