We pretty famously can't prove that humans are conscious. I'd hold off from making strong statements that AI can't become conscious.

▲

wotamess 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This misunderstands the "hard problem" of consciousness which for brevity's sake I will just pose as the question "why does the universe exist at all?"

Sure, we don't know that answer. Probably cannot without an impossible machine that can observe all states of all particles and matter throughout all of time space.

Occam's Razor allows for a simple, good enough definition to satisfy day to day concerns on Earth; consciousness is a feedback loop of sensory information and mechanical body response.

▲

karunamurti 2 days ago | parent [-]

We simulate biological neurons digitally. Give them enough resources to grow, give basic instructions to do feedback loop and to improve. Maybe even suggest the AI to design mechanical vessel for AI.

That consciousness definition will get blurry fast if we don't know what's going on under the hood.

	▲	greyishblu a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Simulation is not empirical. You cannot swap substrates; brain for computer; and claim that's how a brain, and thus human consciousness works. That would be making a claim about electromagnetism in a computer not human consciousness. Every effort to look under the hood will get blurry. Because we cannot confirm past and future states on long timescales either direction we end up with Gödel's incompleteness; lack of empirical observation of all past and future information means we cannot prove all statements are true. Without observation of all particles ever (impossible) there is never resolving "under the hood". So a seemingly superficial daily life description like a feedback loop of sensory input and mechanical response
	▲	wotamess 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

johnbarron 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Sentient Being - Measure of a Man" - https://youtu.be/EFNbTnFHruI

▲

bigbuppo 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm pretty sure one of my co-workers is a p-zombie.

	▲	jfengel a day ago \| parent [-]
		Heck, I'm pretty sure I am. Or maybe I'm just saying that.

▲

angoragoats 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> We pretty famously can't prove that humans are conscious

While I wouldn't call this statement flat-out wrong, I think it's unclear and possibly conflates multiple concepts that exist in different domains:

1) The hard problem of consciousness, which is a philosophical problem that asks "why do we have subjective experiences at all?"

2) Solipsism or hard solipsism, which is another philosophical concept that asserts that only one's own mind is certain to exist and there is no way to prove that any other minds besides one's own aren't just a figment of one's imagination.

3) The science of consciousness, which is the scientific study of how and why consciousness arises in the brain.

The first two are concepts existing in philosophy, while the third is in the domain of science. We absolutely can scientifically show that consciousness is a product of the brain of humans and that one's consciousness can be altered by making modifications to the brain (e.g. via physical or chemical means).

So your statement is at least unclear. Depending on what you mean by "prove," and whether you're speaking about philosophy or empirical/scientific evidence, it may also be incorrect.