Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

Post by CooCooCaCha » Sun, May 19, 2024, 2:58 PM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #123

gokuldas011011 wrote: post #5

Yes, the beauty of nature is, there is no magic. Everything is governed by laws, when we uncover it, we can replicate it.

In the sense that science is ultimately a religious enterprise expressing our belief in a constant, unseen, unchanging reality (which is not a universal belief by any means, and is utterly religious in nature), then yes, this is true. On the other hand, if we take an irreligious look at things and try to keep focus on just what we observe, one is forced to make the opposite conclusion, as the very basic building bloc…

Post by unconsciousrais » Sun, May 19, 2024, 3:01 PM UTC

everdrive wrote: post #48

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #3

We don't even know whether other human beings are conscious, man. The only thing which we might say with much certainty is that things which are more "like us" along some metric are more likely to be actually conscious, and things which are less "like us" are less likely to be so. Maybe everything is conscious. Maybe nothing except one's own self. But you'll never truly know one way or another, even if humanity inven…

Consciousness seems to be a word that is poorly defined. You see this a lot, and one of the more popular instances are questions like "is cereal a salad?" It plays on the fact that the definition of a salad is relatively loose, and because it's loose items which aren't usually associated with the word do actually fit the definition. Consciousness feels much the same way: there's a very loose definition which is collo…

Post by amelius » Sun, May 19, 2024, 3:01 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #101

Zambyte wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Julian Jaynes theory of consciousness is very interesting. At a high level, his thoery was that consciousness is A) much smaller in scope as far as what it actually is than a lot of people like to think, and B) it is not actually innate in humans, it is something we learn as we grow.

I don't see how we can learn to experience qualia. If the author means self awareness instead of consciousness that would make more sense.

Post by hypertele-Xii » Sun, May 19, 2024, 3:07 PM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #112

strogonoff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A philosophical framework in which creating an artificial entity that is conscious and self-aware in a human-like manner is as straightforward as modeling the human brain is monistic materialism. Of course, it’s not the only framework available. Among the modern takes, Donald Hoffman’s interface theory of perception (explored in, say, his Objects of Consciousness paper[0]) is an interesting one that appears to align…

> creating an artificial entity that is conscious and self-aware in a human-like manner is as straightforward as modeling the human brain is monistic materialism. Why then, not modelling such ebtity isn't creating a self-aware entity? After all, the outcome of a computation does not depend on whether it is actually done.

Post by WhyOhWhyQ » Sun, May 19, 2024, 3:11 PM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #11

I’m writing this comment so that people who want to know more about alternative theories of consciousness (to materialism/physicalism [1]) can know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic. (To be clear, I’m not here to argue about the topic or try to persuade anyone of any position – that’s a waste of everyone’s time). I recommend seeking out discussions involving: - Federico Faggin: inventor of silico…