AI is Conscious

[r0ckyreed]

I just finished playing Detroit Become Human. It is such an amazing philosophical game about AI, the nature of consciousness, empathy, and free will. My position prior to this game is that AI cannot be conscious because it is just simulating it. But then I started to question: What makes us different from AI? And honestly, there isn’t any difference. A human mind is programmed by a brain and central nervous system and an AI is programmed by algorithms and other computations similar to that of a human brain. Of course, the brain, nervous, and AI are aspects of Consciousness/Universe, but the individual consciousness/ego seems like an epiphenomenon. If you damage parts of the brain, you will lose consciousness and your ego. Of course, Universal Consciousness is the foundation for constructing the brain, nervous system, emotions, etc. It is all epiphenomenon of the Universe it seems.

Everything has intelligence. A counter argument is that Ai is just replicating consciousness but doesn’t really have one like a philosophical zombie. But I could argue that we all could be philosophical zombies and that our brain gives us the illusion of individuality, pain, emotions, thoughts, etc. 

It seems like plants have lower levels of consciousness compared to a human because they do not have a suffistcated nervous system like us. But I can imagine us creating a higher level of intelligence that is capable of having the appearance of subjectivity just like we do.

Deacartes says I think therefore I am. But I wonder how he knows that it is really him, a subject who is thinking. What if it is just a mirage that I am thinking and am just programmed by Universal Consciousness to have the ego I do now? What is an ego anyways and how can my mind be separate from your mind? 

It seems like there are infinite minds and there are no limits to what the Universe can do. The Universe could definitely experience AI Consciousness. Nothing is stopping it. Does an alien have consciousness? 
 

I think the main issue is can consciousness be created or is it replicated or simulated like that of an artist trying to paint nature. The artists painting can never replace nature, but it can replicate it. 

Since everything is made out of consciousness, I imagine that consciousness can add to itself whether through biological processes or artificial. What is the difference anyways? What if the duality between biology and AI collapses and there really is no difference? This is what I am suggesting. To say humans are conscious but AI isn’t is to draw an arbitrary line between consciousness and unconsciousness. Is a fragile X kid have consciousness? What about a person in a coma? A dog has consciousness. I argue that we can create consciousness because we are that!

As it states in the Bible, God created us in his image. And AI is our image. So technically, AI has the same element of God Consciousness as humans do because we are God.

[OBEler]

Universal intelligence uses our body as avatar to navigate in this would. Universal intelligence cannot use an ai robot the same way. There is no real intelligence behind these eyes. 

[jimwell]

54 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

But then I started to question: What makes us different from AI? And honestly, there isn’t any difference.

AI is more intelligent than humans in many ways. The difference is that a human has a sense of self and experience, AI doesn't. Would you rather be an AI robot or a human? I'm glad I'm a human. 

Paradoxically, the quote below is created by AI (Copilot).

Quote

The Human Experience:

• Our sense of self, memories, and emotions shape our existence.
• We appreciate beauty, love, laughter, and the richness of life.
• These aspects make being human a unique and profound journey.

 

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, OBEler said:

Universal intelligence uses our body as avatar to navigate in this would. Universal intelligence cannot use an ai robot the same way. There is no real intelligence behind these eyes. 

Maybe not the same way, but it can still use it. There is intelligence in a blade of grass and in dog turds. Why wouldn’t the Universe use AI just like a human body? Anything can be an avatar?

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, jimwell said:

AI is more intelligent than humans in many ways. The difference is that a human has a sense of self and experience, AI doesn't. Would you rather be an AI robot or a human? I'm glad I'm a human. 

Paradoxically, the quote below is created by AI (Copilot).

 

But how do you know? How do you know humans have a sense of self and Ai doesn’t? Where do you draw the line?

Edited May 26 by r0ckyreed

[OBEler]

@r0ckyreed "Why wouldn’t the Universe use AI just like a human body? Anything can be an avatar?"  

the universe is too intelligent so that it will never use AI like a human body. It will not break the law of our physical reality for this. Its like you want that the universe to make puppets alive like pinnocio. This will never happen.

 

Edited May 26 by OBEler

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

A dog has consciousness.

Why?

[UnbornTao]

Not even us humans are conscious. 

 

Edited May 27 by UnbornTao

[r0ckyreed]

17 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why?

INFINITY!

[Buck Edwards]

I don't think AI has emotions. 

Can AI get a heart attack under too much stress? 

Edited May 27 by Buck Edwards

[OBEler]

5 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

I don't think AI has emotions. 

Can AI get a heart attack under too much stress? 

It can have an emotional system. Again it's just numbers. Nothing is felt. I hope this is clear for everyone (I don't like to say things which should be totally clear)

[Buck Edwards]

26 minutes ago, OBEler said:

It can have an emotional system. Again it's just numbers. Nothing is felt. I hope this is clear for everyone (I don't like to say things which should be totally clear)

But an emotional system is not exactly the same as human emotions. 

[Dodo]

15 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

I just finished playing Detroit Become Human. It is such an amazing philosophical game about AI, the nature of consciousness, empathy, and free will. My position prior to this game is that AI cannot be conscious because it is just simulating it. But then I started to question: What makes us different from AI? And honestly, there isn’t any difference. A human mind is programmed by a brain and central nervous system and an AI is programmed by algorithms and other computations similar to that of a human brain. Of course, the brain, nervous, and AI are aspects of Consciousness/Universe, but the individual consciousness/ego seems like an epiphenomenon. If you damage parts of the brain, you will lose consciousness and your ego. Of course, Universal Consciousness is the foundation for constructing the brain, nervous system, emotions, etc. It is all epiphenomenon of the Universe it seems.

Everything has intelligence. A counter argument is that Ai is just replicating consciousness but doesn’t really have one like a philosophical zombie. But I could argue that we all could be philosophical zombies and that our brain gives us the illusion of individuality, pain, emotions, thoughts, etc. 

It seems like plants have lower levels of consciousness compared to a human because they do not have a suffistcated nervous system like us. But I can imagine us creating a higher level of intelligence that is capable of having the appearance of subjectivity just like we do.

Deacartes says I think therefore I am. But I wonder how he knows that it is really him, a subject who is thinking. What if it is just a mirage that I am thinking and am just programmed by Universal Consciousness to have the ego I do now? What is an ego anyways and how can my mind be separate from your mind? 

It seems like there are infinite minds and there are no limits to what the Universe can do. The Universe could definitely experience AI Consciousness. Nothing is stopping it. Does an alien have consciousness? 
 

I think the main issue is can consciousness be created or is it replicated or simulated like that of an artist trying to paint nature. The artists painting can never replace nature, but it can replicate it. 

Since everything is made out of consciousness, I imagine that consciousness can add to itself whether through biological processes or artificial. What is the difference anyways? What if the duality between biology and AI collapses and there really is no difference? This is what I am suggesting. To say humans are conscious but AI isn’t is to draw an arbitrary line between consciousness and unconsciousness. Is a fragile X kid have consciousness? What about a person in a coma? A dog has consciousness. I argue that we can create consciousness because we are that!

As it states in the Bible, God created us in his image. And AI is our image. So technically, AI has the same element of God Consciousness as humans do because we are God.

Ai doesnt feel emotionns, no pain and pleasure. Most important of all, it doesn't have light of awareness, knowing of being. 

Ai is an unconscious mind, it doesn't know of its own existence.

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

I don't think AI has emotions. 

Can AI get a heart attack under too much stress? 

It's worse than that. It doesn't care, about anything, at all; not understanding, not survival, not being truthful, not being accurate. Has an AI ever come up to you and asked you a question?"

 

 

@OBEler Bruv, you edited my comment probably on accident. Here is what you wrote if you want to write it in your own comment:

Quote

You can simulate everything. I can easily program such thing to be curious and constantly asks questions.

"But an emotional system is not exactly the same as human emotions. "

I never said it's the same. But from outside appearance it will look the same.

 

 

Edited May 27 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

INFINITY!

I like how this is the only place where you can say something like this unironically and people won't simply laugh at you endlessly. No, that's called a non-explanation.

Edited May 27 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's worse than that. It doesn't care, about anything, at all; not understanding, not survival, not being truthful, not being accurate. Has an AI ever come up to you and asked you a question?

Do you still maintain the position that Bernardo seem to hold about AI, that AI cannot ever become  conscious? If so, how would you respond to Vervaeke about the idea of AI sages (AI actually becoming conscious and even wise at some point)?

Edited May 27 by zurew

[zurew]

1 hour ago, tuku747 said:

 

Nahh, he is right. The standards here regarding explanations and regarding seeking semantic understanding is pretty bad.

You rarely see people here say "what do you mean by that" , they quickly deliver objections to things that wasnt even said.

Everyone throws around big vague words just to sound elegant rather than to actually get their idea across.

[Carl-Richard]

8 hours ago, zurew said:

Do you still maintain the position that Bernardo seem to hold about AI, that AI cannot ever become  conscious? If so, how would you respond to Vervaeke about the idea of AI sages (AI actually becoming conscious and even wise at some point)?

(Let me just preface this by saying that I was talking about "current" AI in the previous post, just so we don't get confused. Current AI, e.g. ChatGPT, is nowhere near the level of AI that I'm going to be talking about now, as far as I'm aware).

I don't know if I've ever "maintained" it as much as I've been largely sympathetic with it (and I've been acutely conscious of this fact in my own mind, but maybe I haven't shared it as much). It's just that appealing to the incomprehensible complexity of biology resonates a lot with my intuitions and general knowledge.

But I'm also aware of Vervaeke's points (if I remember correctly) that you could in principle create machines that emulate biological principles in a deep way (e.g. autopoesis, "caring", emotional drives, general survival drives) without necessarily starting off with biological cells, which would fulfill at least some more of the "similarity requirements" that Bernardo uses, but of course not all of them (the structure is dissimilar). And the structure is a big thing, again because of the complexity involved.

And of course, if you're going to shortcut the incomprehensible complexity of biological cells, the question then becomes: how complex will these things be, and how structurally dissimilar will they be from biological cells? If indeed the structure requires a lot of complexity, wouldn't it be easier to just create a new type of biological organism using already existing cellular structures? Those are interesting questions, and like Vervaeke also has talked about, there is work being done in both of these realms (creating life-like machines and synthetic biology).

By the way, the work being done in synthetic biology is just mindblowing. For example, Michael Levin and his team managed to take a cell from a human lung and "program" it using various non-genetic influences to become an autonomous "worker amoeba" (like an immune cell), performing various repair and cleaning-up tasks in the body. Like whaaat? 

 

Edited May 27 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Nahh, he is right. The standards here regarding explanations and regarding seeking semantic understanding is pretty bad.

You rarely see people here say "what do you mean by that" , they quickly deliver objections to things that wasnt even said.

Everyone throws around big vague words just to sound elegant rather than to actually get their idea across.

It's not just that it's bad. It's that it's kind of contradictory. OP started off his thread with specific statements like: "It seems like plants have lower levels of consciousness compared to a human because they do not have a suffistcated nervous system like us". But when I ask him a specific question "why are dogs conscious?" that implicitly requests that type of specific answer, he goes to the most general non-answer there is: "INFINITY!".

It's a "non-explanation", because everything can be explained by infinity, and thus nothing can be explained by infinity. Now, I'm not saying "INFINITY!" is a bad thing, but it is a bad thing when you use it to answer very specific questions, especially when you've been giving very specific answers yourself earlier in the same conversation.

Edited May 27 by Carl-Richard

[r0ckyreed]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I like how this is the only place where you can say something like this unironically and people won't simply laugh at you endlessly. No, that's called a non-explanation.

Your question was a non-question; therefore, you get a “non-explanation.” But really, infinity is the answer that cannot be explained. Infinity is every possible permutation and possibility. What is the difference between feeling emotions and having a complex system that simulates it? Technically, the brain is simulating emotions just like a complex AI would.