When Dawkins met Claude – Could this AI be conscious?

Not to mention the algorithmic structure of computer intelligence also fundamentally changes at a rapid pace. Deep learning and new techniques continually augment and change the software stack on a daily basis.

For humans nothing is changing. The physical substrate changes via evolution and that change happens per generation via random mutations and is basically imperceptible in several human life times. Any meaningful change likely only becomes actualized over tens of thousands of years and even that change is small.

Additionally, the changes via natural selection don’t optimize for greater intelligence it optimizes for survival which can in actuality favor lower intelligence. We don’t actually know if that is the case but we do know it’s a possibility which is in sharp contrast to AI where clearly the industry is optimizing improvement based off of benchmarks for measuring raw intelligence.

Additionally software in humans is random and uncontrolled. It depends on how a child is raised and none of this is really changing to optimize for greater intelligence. It’s just random based on culture and circumstance. There is cultural evolution here but it is slow and technology is changing so fast it is influencing culture much faster than ever before. TikTok Brain rot for example is affecting the software of human brains and this happened within the last decade.

So draw the trendline… what does that mean for humanity? When I called those people idiots, I am not contradicting anything. Human intelligence is NOT scaling at the rate of machine intelligence and the trendlines point to a future where humans are idiots when compared to their AI counterparts. The cold hard truth of the future role of humanity according to the moving trendlines we see today is bleak but it is the most likely future.

Rationality should be applied universally even when that rationality points to a negative outcome for humanity. This is something many people, including you, are unable to do. Face reality.

This sort of implies that consciousness arise from physical laws.

But this is not a safe assumption. Physical laws stand on top of observations that is registered on consciousness. I mean, consciousness could be lower level than physics.

For example, when you dream, you have some physical laws in your dream, perhaps laws that are different from the real world physics. So the dream world, including the physical laws in it, are within your consciousness.

In other words the only thing that require existence of a whole universe, is a single conscious that can experience it (or dream it), not a single atom need to exist outside of it.

In that case, you won't be able to create consciousness by applying physical laws.

Incorrect. There's still a lot we don't know about atoms. We can (sort of) model them, but not with the degree of accuracy you appear to think we have.

I mean, it's only recently that we discovered surprising changes in the properties of quarks, gluons and nucleons in relation to each other!

So, yeah, the following foundation for your argument:

> So we do know for a fact that the brain can be modeled mathematically

Is untrue. We can't do that, we have never done that.

> The blue brain project has already modeled the hippocampus and cortex of the rat brain uses advanced imaging and simulations in super computers.

They've got something, but they don't know how close or how far away they are from accuracy to the real thing.

We've almost always had a model of the human brain; first our model was simple (it has four or five parts), then we learned more and our model expanded to include actual cells (neurons, dendrites, etc), then we learned even more and our model was refined even further to include activation energies, rerouting, etc.

What makes you think we are anywhere close to the base layer when there is no more refinement to be made? Because while there is still things in brains that our outside of our knowledge (which, by definition, we don't know yet), we don't know enough about brains to make a replica of one as a mathematical model, or in silicon.