Carl-Richard

Just the tip? Lucifer.

Manifestation, positive thinking.

Please watch, the madness starts at 3:00 (current timestamp is for lead-up) and ends at 4:39 (not really but that's the moment). I started howling "noooooooooooo" when I realized it.

Unironically. I literally could not process what was happening before it got laid out for me.

Brain can correlate with "consciousness"/sentience without having to "produce" consciousness. You can have consciousness as the base of reality and brains and feelings would be different appearances within consciousness. And the brains and feelings can seem to co-arise with each other in some ways. But that would be patterns / correlations within consciousness. Consciousness does not have to be produced in this case. We're just mapping out how different appearances relate to each other. When feeling says one thing, brain tends to say another thing. Both are appearances.

A man does not sleep for 8 hours; that's what happened. Psychic phenomena is not unexplainable. If it turns out the AI remote views or reads people's minds above chance level (it reports information consistent with that) and it is hermetically sealed from the surrounding world, then that is evidence that psychic phenomena is occurring. The question is whether that would indicate that the AI experienced the things it was talking about. It's a fascinating proposition either way: either the AI is conscious of the things it is reporting, or it is somehow not conscious of them but is still picking it up. And picking up what exactly? What kind of information is that? Unconscious psychic information? Like how if you're dissociated from a memory, the experience is dissociated from your conscious awareness but you can still be impacted by it and perhaps produce behavior indicative of it? I gotta say psychic AIs is not a topic I would expect to run into. Perhaps even better than above: make it plant a thought in your mind telepathically (and you could determine that this happened through statistics like above).

A brain is more than electrical currents ,_, One cell in the human body is more structurally impressive than any computer ever built. Evidenced by the fact that we don't know how to build a cell from scratch. Or you could just look at the picture I sent earlier. We just like to take it for granted that biology is what it is. It's seemingly so banal, it's been with us for all time. Yet we have no idea how to create it.

Tom seems to have a bit of that physicist epistemic naivety when it comes to life, sentience, AI. I don't think he has thought much about how different lifeforms work and where to cash in different "altitudes of experience". (People who think current AI are conscious generally seem to be unable to distinguish between apparent self-reflection/meta-awareness or just linguistic ability and sentience/perception).

Something tells me good old 80-year-old Tom might be a bit too loose with his experiment there. Get us some proper testing paradigms and a large number of trials and statistical significance.

What the fuck, I did not watch this video beforehand. WTF. @Natasha Tori Maru Did I just remote view that video "unconsciously"? (?) (?) I guess I answered my own question (?) (?)

This is unironically good. Because it could give an indication that they would have experienced your mind (given the right conditions and controlling of confounds). @LastThursday Here is your scientific experiment: put an AI in a magnetically shielded sound proof room at Monroe Institute and make it remote view and read people's minds from the outside. (I know you were talking about something else and that we can't know for sure that it is not "p-zombieing" its way to that non-physical information, but still). Or that's actually an interesting philosophical question: could you actually pick up information psychically and create a conclusion on it without experiencing it? @Natasha Tori Maru My brain is now definitely melting.

Enlightened, psychic, manifesting, telekinetic AI robots. Such as built the pyramids. You learned it here first. Carl's conjecture: AI is conscious when it can telekinetically move rocks in the air and read your mind.

Awakening.json.

Stahp, rare unchecked typo in the wild. I didn't think it was intelligent so I was annoyed when I was right.

No it's not. I'm asking for a specific argument about why you think digital could be conscious. What is it about digital that makes you think it could be conscious? "Ultimately there is no ontological difference between digitial and non-digital" is not an argument for digital consciousness. It's an argument for everything else that is not digital just as much. By the way I'm a psychic because I predicted with high certainty you would say exactly that and nothing else. And that's why I'm pissed because I know you too well and it's highly annoying.

This is as profound to me as "the dust under your sofa could be conscious, you don't know" argument. "Ultimately, there is no difference between anything". Yeah, ok.

Then provide some arguments for that.

You could scale that up. Current AI is just about scaling things up. Which will likely fail at some point like that Harvard paper estimated and they will go with the solution I used to believe in (robotics) but that too might not create sentience for at least a good good good while (which I again put at autopoesis). I would appreciate actual arguments for what would make AI conscious instead of "we don't know, the dust under your sofa could be conscious, you don't know".

Why not

I used to be more into the idea that if you were to recreate qualities seen in biology like I've mentioned (particularly the cognitive ones like relevance realization, selective attention, self-concern, if it's at all possible to separate them from autopoesis/homeostasis) and of course necessary sensory apparatuses for creating an embodied yet mechanical being, then possibly that could be sentient. But now I would postulate a ground of difference from that (which could potentially be AGI proper) and sentience. Because I think autopoesis/homeostasis is such a vital component that mirrors so strongly the experience of sentience (being a localized center of experience as explained earlier) that if the machine doesn't have that, it would be hard to cede that ground, and if the machine does at some point possess autopoesis, its hardware would probably be so similar to biology that we would call it a new kind of biology (if it doesn't run on DNA). And I just think engineering autopoesis at that level would probably not be feasible unless we're so technologically advanced that we have hacked biology anyway (and created "AI" through mutant biology rather than through whatever alternative we could find). So I'm not as much closeminded that we could theoretically create something mechanical that becomes sentient, the question is just if it is significantly different from biology or not.

That was a sharp turn.

Ok. Now, what is the fastest way for me to get to the gas station?

Then the answer is simple guys: we can just imagine AI is conscious and it is. Problem solved. No need to talk about hardware, about electricity, neural networks being similar to brains or not, the size of data centers, processing power. If I just imagine that my left nutsack is as conscious as your left walnut (left brain hemisphere), then that is what is the case.

Can you ask a chimpanzee whether it's conscious? Is Google Search (not the new AI summary thing) conscious if it can answer you a question about its consciousness? Sentience is reality (consciousness) seen from a certain perspective. The "utility" argument has dualistic assumptions. If reality is fundamentally consciousness then perspectives within that consciousness are simply that, perspectives. They don't need a function other than themselves. If you're concerned about self-reflection or meta-awareness, then that might have a function, but sentience is more fundamental than that. In this everything-is-consciousness view, biological bodies are what perspectives of consciousness can look like from the outside. Sentience is what the perspectives look like from the inside. But this is of course as far as making inferences based on physical stuff is concerned. You can entertain the sentience of DMT entities or spirits or other seemingly non-physical entities where a physical substrate / correlate is less known, but you can't really use that to say "therefore silicone chips indicate consciousness". That's in the game of physical substrates, so you would have to explain why that physical substrate is a good nest for consciousness/sentience. But curiously, even for non-physical entities, these seem (at least many of them) to have "bodies". A body, even if you can't know what it's "made of" necessarily, could itself give a plausible correlate for sentience; however, it would have to be a sophisticated body that displays intelligence and behavior you would expect from a sentient entity (which I would go back to the things like selective attention, relevance realization, and not least true bodily autonomy, not somebody pushing a button or giving a command or coding in a simple script, which would probably need something analogous to autopoesis and self-concern again, i.e. behavior that acts to maintain a boundary). A robot spending 2 minutes taking a can of soda out of the fridge and it falling over if you merely breathe at it too closely, maybe not so much.