If ai running on silicon can be conscious - does it imply that the same calculation done by a human with pen and paper is also conscious?

▲

behrlich 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think so! You independently stumbled upon the "China brain" thought experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain - is "the nation of china simulating a brain" conscious?

	▲	throw310822 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		From this and Searle's "Chinese room" at least we know for sure that any conscious entity of this type must speak Chinese.

▲

subscribed 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Your brain is a network. How does your entangled fatty tissue achieved consciousness?

I think that until we can answer this question in the authoritative way ruling out non-brain based consciousness concept is not particularly well thought thought - after all plants exhibit communication and response mechanisms that are similar to those in animals - without brain.

So what's your theory of consciousness and how does it preclude absolutely everything except wetware you generously include? :)

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft 8 hours ago | parent [-]

>How does your entangled fatty tissue achieved consciousness?

It doesn't. Humans aren't conscious. Nor are any other organisms. They don't have souls either, but that goes without saying since it's just an archaic synonym. Mostly this occurs because humans have painted themselves into corners morally-speaking, and they need justification to eat bacon or grow their population. And apparently "because we can and we want to" isn't the correct solution.

We'll never be able to "answer the question" because it is an absurd question on its face. "Where do we find the magical brain ghosts making us special" presupposes there is something to be found, and a negative answer proves only that we haven't looked hard enough.

>after all plants exhibit communication and response mechanisms that are similar to those in animals - without brain.

Were that line of inquiry followed to its inevitable conclusion, there would be a mass vegan suicide to look forward to.

▲

OkayPhysicist 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is a tired point of discussion, brought up exclusively by contrarians trying to be edgy. No one earnestly believes that they don't have free will, because if they did, it would result in obvious deviance in behavior. Everyone treats each other as if they have choices, and in turn behaves like they have choices. If the assertion is that we don't have free will, but are forced to (due to our lack of free will) to behave and believe like we do, than there's no difference in experience to compared to having free will, and it ends up in the pile of pointless conversations like what if we're a brain in a jar, or in a simulation, or whatever.

▲

azan_ 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn't consciousness phenomenon that's literally derived from human experience? How can you have any definition of consciousness that says humans do not possess it, it's contradictory.

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft 6 hours ago | parent [-]

>How can you have any definition of consciousness that says humans do not possess it,

I'm not obligated to prove the negative.

>Isn't consciousness phenomenon that's literally derived from human experience?

You grew up watching and seeing all the various illusions caused by how your brain works/malfunctions, but this is the one experience you're sure is the real deal? The one telling you that it's a scientific fact that you have a woo-woo spirit in your skull, and that neuroscientists are going to find it any day now?

▲

azan_ 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You grew up watching and seeing all the various illusions caused by how your brain works/malfunctions, but this is the one experience you're sure is the real deal? The one telling you that it's a scientific fact that you have a woo-woo spirit in your skull, and that neuroscientists are going to find it any day now?

No, that's your projection, I did not make any of these claims. I'm sure I have consciousness. I don't know how it works, if it's "real deal" (what does it even mean?), if its woo-woo spirit and if neuroscientists will ever be able to find. What we know is that humans experience it (I'll instantly clarify - it doesn't mean that non-humans do not experience it) hence definition which excludes humans will always make zero sense.

	▲	NoMoreNicksLeft an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>I'm sure I have consciousness. Why? How is your claim different than a Catholic who claims to have a soul? I respect their claim more than yours, oddly. >I don't know how it works, i How what works? This consciousness that you're sure you possess, but you can't measure, detect, define, or even really describe? You don't have it. Everything you are can be explained without it, and it doesn't make you less than what you were if you had it. It's a nonsense idea, primitive and inherited from religion. You don't have it because there's no such thing.

▲

GTP 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cogito ergo sum.

▲

amanaplanacanal 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You appear to have a rather idiosyncratic definition of consciousness.

▲

colordrops 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You apparently don't understand veganism and the ethics behind it.

▲

hattmall 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Interestings thoughts for an non-conscious being such as yourself.

	▲	NoMoreNicksLeft 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. Thank you.

▲

yuck39 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this comes from our rather nebulous definition of "consciousness".

We have this natural tendancy to impose our feelings of self on the definition of consciousness. Its hard to accept that all of our thoughts, emotions, and behaviours could be calculated by a human with pen and paper (with enough humans and developments in neurobiological research).

I believe we will have to reckon with these loose definitions and eventually realize how lacking in utility they are for describing engineered intellegence.

▲

kuboble 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't find it hard to accept, but it's rather fascinating to think.

The way I think of it is along this way:

Despite the fact that our brains consist of bilions of neurons we think of ourselves as a unit enclosed in a single skull. But studies on people who have two sides of brain separated suggest that there can exist two separate conscious entities in one body.

If we have removed the physical limitations of support systems of our brain - I think it is possible you could split the brain in smaller and smaller chunks of less and less conscious entities until you reach single neurons which almost certainly do not have consciousness.

"The_Invincible" from Stanisław Lem is also a nice novel about the similar concept.

▲

colordrops 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That's like saying you can split a dinner plate into smaller and smaller pieces until you no longer have a plate. It's presupposing that "plates" are an inherit physical property "out there" that would exist without human categorization.

	▲	kuboble 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, but less then a plate, and more a piece of cake, carpet, forest or sea.

▲

colordrops 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This question boils down to whether consciousness is emergent from physical substrate and processes or not. If so, then yes, anything can be conscious, if not, you probably believe in spirit.