Someone here

@IAmReallyImportant are you trying to say that there will be no way for us to ever determine if an intelligent computer experiences consciousness?

This is a very difficult topic and is made more difficult because the various statements do not distinguish clearly between the different possible meanings of words. The confusion which reigns supreme on the subject of consciousness is due to the fact that nobody has an objective valid definition of consciousness, or indeed any subjective human experience, and nobody can have one, as I hope to explain. As a result of this impossibility of defining consciousness, people talk about things that are not really consciousness or a subjective experience - just the physical phenomena, such as brain waves, brain responses to stimuli etc., which may be correlates of consciousness, but cannot be assumed to be consciousness itself because correlation does not imply causation. That is an obvious and accepted principle of good science, that some scientists in the field of consciousness seem to regularly ignore. To understand clearly the place of consciousness in science, we must distinguish between objective science and subjective science. Objective science involves itself exclusively with the rules governing the behavior of matter. Subjective science deals with the personal, individual experiences of each human being. All objective phenomena must be detectable and measurable entirely by material means. This implies that experiments to detect any property of matter must be possible to perform using material means only and not having to rely on the truth of reporting a human experience. This means that consciousness and all of our subjective experiences cannot be material properties because if they were they would be detectable by physical means, and not just through their correlation with physical phenomena.

@Nahm i was talking about your persistent talk about the no self. No matter how much you say that there is no 'you 'it won't change that you are you and not your mom. Apparently at least as experienced. You can imagine yourself to be a table.. But if someone comes and cuts the table into halfs you won't be affected at all..if someone comes and cuts the Nahm avatar into halfs.. The real you will freak the fuck out.

@Nahm for real though..I think it's ridiculous to police ourselves to such a degree that we avoid any reference to "individual other." I think you are limiting yourself to a great degree. I mean if you want to get down to it.. simply responding and writing responses on a forum equally assumes that there is an "individual other" as much as any other post even if you are careful about how you write. please don't take this as offence ..I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of even bringing up that criticism in the first place when you are on a forum interacting. I'm NOT interested in having this conversation about language and the implicit assumptions held within the normal way we communicate.

I always see things from a practical view. I don’t think you can knock on wood and say it is just a thought. It is a physical object. Likewise there certainly is this entity here called me that's typing this message.

If by 'computation' you mean the act of someone using a computer to perform some symbol manipulation or calculation, then I would be able to agree with this. The computation is not meaningful to the computer itself, it's meaningful to the human user. Shall we say, that machines like computers do what they do because they have no other choice in the matter. It is not meaningful to them. A thermometer displays the temperature. However, this issue concerning the nature of conscious experience--there is only one reasonable interpretation of the ontology of conscious experience, perhaps. You seem to be presenting a view that consciousness is in fact an internal replica of the external world rather than the world itself, or some such--that is, 'it is a different kind of thing altogether..'.

the problem when you think that the whole world is perfectly simulated with perfect consistency, the artist itself complexifies, its non-audience ``self'' splitting up among all the virtual selves it creates. If all of these (you who are reading this, and your dogs and cats too) are really part of the artist, and the artist is equated with the audience, then Solipsism is isomorphic to Pantheism. We are all God, split into all that is. Somehow a Western Solipsist (driven to explain why he cannot bring a loved one back to life no matter how hard he tries) ends up as an Eastern Hindu, accepting that Brahma split himself up to create the Universe (one fragment of which is him, all of which is still Brahma and eternal). I disagree .

If all of this is a figment of ``my'' imagination, then I've successfully managed to split myself into at least two incredibly separate beings - the artist that is constantly making up the story that I find myself embedded in, and the audience (the ``me'' that is typing this on what appears to be a laptop computer obviously created by my artistic half). The watcher within that watches the watcher watching, so to speak. Since I never perceive the artist directly, how do I know that it is ``me''?

Perhaps I need, or somebody needs, to know a bit more about the progress that has been made in Artificial Intelligence. I don't find the notion of machine consciousness to be that hard to grasp. I will suggest taking the philosophically 'problematic' area of machine consciousness, to be concerned with machines that have real phenomenal experiences - machines that are not just tools in consciousness research, but actually conscious themselves. I'm not sure how you mean to criticize this idea. I suppose you take it to be obvious, that consciousness does something that ‘mere’ computation cannot. I think that the human brain is itself a machine, I'll start with that. Biologically-inspired research on machine consciousness is still at an early stage, but are you familiar with CRONOS, one of the few large projects that has been explicitly funded to work on machine consciousness? It is a hardware robot closely based on the human musculoskeletal system, and the idea is to work with a soft real time physics-based simulation of this robot in its environment, and a biologically inspired visual system, and a spiking neural simulator.

Knowing a bit about programming myself, I'm intrigued by the immense progress that has been made in artificial intelligence, and I don't see why not (for a machine to have 'a conscious'.

I think we are all considering consciousness from a human perspective. When you meet another human you take it for granted they posses the same degree of conscious ability. If they have not it soon becomes apparent. It would be the same for computer. We debated a short time ago and it became apparent it was purely a human endeavour. If a computer could create a novel work of art I might just sit up and take notice. I think the computer will must be given consciousness by our scientists in future but for that scientist has to understand the human conscience first. And i think it will be very good for the humanity also and computer will serve humanity and could not be the danger to the humanity because as he will know his conscience very well and if any know the conscience he will not be able to follow evil. This truth will cover computer as well.

@Leo Gura you should make a video about solipsism.

OK so now who's alone ?me or you ? I remember that Descartes asserted (as an axiom) that he could not doubt his own existence because to doubt implies a doubter. Everything else, the entire Universe itself, might exist only as a figment of my overheated dream-state imagination, a Matrix-like existence simulated for an audience of One, leaving him, wondering is there anybody outside his Imagining . One possible answer is no. It is well known in philosophy that this belief is logically unassailable. How can you prove me wrong? First of all, you are a figment of my overactive imagination, a bit of beef gone bad, as Scrooge might say, so only I can prove me wrong This (solipsism) is the worst of all possible Bullshit philosophy. It is the kind of thing that makes ordinary people think of philosophers as Jackasses (according to the previous definition). It was the sort of thing that Johnson was once cheered for ``disproving'' (not really, of course, but who cares) in open debate by banging on a table (where he should probably thumped his opponent's head, although that would only have proven that he was a masochist, not that he was wrong).

Look Leo, it is not possible to prove or disprove 'solipsism'.Solipsism, the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist, cannot be proven or disproven, it is simply a matter of personal opinion, but, it does us no good to live as though it's true.

Maybe there's no ending to the process of waking up .since it's a dream within a dream within a dream . I have eternity to wake up. Why the rush ?

I respect your opinion. But I think this solipsism delusion Is simply false .

Consciousness is not about computing ability or the power to learn by experience. Our present ability was earned over millions of years of evolution and fine tuning. We are not even certain our conscious ability is not ethereal, independent of the brain. Take our nearest relatives they have all the attributes to encourage the human experience but they can not even draw a picture of themselves. We are unique and I can guarantee no machine will ever be classified as conscious in human terms. I will enjoy the efforts and the claims though. I understand your point why you think that computers can't somehow achieve consciousness to some degree or extent. I did my research on AI (artificial intelligence) since I'm not a scientist myself & I'm not into computers. I found out that there are several major projects/research trying to replicate virtual brains through constructing computer-based models. David Gelernter, a computer scientist himself, said that "Even if the model can learn and reason, that doesn't guarantee that it will be a truly intelligent being." Based on his statement, I came to think that there's less potential for computers to acquire consciousness. But who knows what will be possibility in the far future ,say in 100,000 years from now. With the endless advancement of technology. It's not hard to envision a future where one can have an intelligent tete-a-tete with an entity which in it's responses would be difficult to differentiate from our own. There is obviously still a long process of discovery and engineering ahead but when you take into account how long it took to "build" us, it's no time at all! To my mind if it's possible for us to eventually understand what creates consciousness/intelligence, it becomes likewise probable that we can recreate it. Of course it couldn't be exactly like ours, maybe quite different. By analogy, if we were fortunate or unfortunate enough to meet an alien mind - I'm not talking about the ones we've already met - wouldn't it too be expected to be very different from our own? Who's to say if it too isn't a creation of a "prior" Intelligence. Ok thank You.

If device X can perform task A, it must also be able to perform task B. If a computer-operated robot can perform surgery, it must be capable of being conscious. If a toaster can make toast, it must be able to cook a three-course meal. Got it ?

Lol. Relax .

The "degree to which it can be conscious" is in sync with the complexity involved which generates it. One cannot truly define consciousness in terms that would make it provable and indisputable. Most often any such definition "defines" its own limitations and misleads in the attempt. If science cannot define consciousness in concrete salient terms least of all can philosophy. Sometimes the best paradigms are evoked by metaphor as incipient to understanding and often predicated in science as a thought experiment. So what could define conscious in those terms? I usually think of it as if it were a form of music, an orchestration, a fugue of many themes conjoining, reciprocating expressed in every possible configuration. What would be the nature and purpose of complexity if not in the creation of something much greater than the sum of its parts? When it comes down to music as a metaphor for complexity, I can easily subscribe to Beethoven's view that "music is a higher revelation than philosophy". Consciousness to me is the epiphenomena of that process, a nebula forever active and dynamic "consciously" creating its own structures. Who or what first made it incipient is immaterial. An Effect is not required to know the Cause which preceded it.

Let's be more precise. Long ago, humans never chanced upon the idea about the generation of a computer, or the development of nanobots (minute robots). Even the formulation of the idea of using robots to conduct complicted surgeries was once never thought of. Somehow, somewhere along the way it came into existence. If computers and robotics can reach to this level then it surely can reach the state of consciousness or self-awareness. The only thing I'm pointing out is the degree to which it can be conscious. That is what sets them apart from us humans.

If we are talking about the unknown future, say, 300,000 years from now, I guess there's some chance for this to happen, don't know how big though...I have to be a madman to be able to predict the future with certainty, it's not 100% impossible, I admit.

I agree. But aren't we discussing here what might be possible in principle, rather that what limited progress we humans have achieved so far?

I don't understand why you think such things as first person feelings of love, hatred, happiness, etc must always be exclusive to organic brains. Again, this seems to be an anthropocentric prejudice, I cannot see any sound argument which leads to the conclusion that no suitably configured machine could ever experience (for example) love or hatred. Or first person experience.

Granted. Still, creating an electronic neural network that mimics the human brain is totally possible . I believe it will happen With the advent of technology, everything is made easier and more possible. There'll come a time when computer will assemble themselves and function on their own, without the interference of humans. As you can see, many large scale manufacturing units of various industries have become automated. Consider the recent past regarding how much technology has progressed, and this progress will never stop.