Quantum consciousness...

[bennyboy]

It's pretty clear that you haven't watched the video.  You should be directing arguments about specific points from the video, not lecturing ignoramus on middle school biology as though he's a child.

I don't have to watch Star Trek either.

Look, again, there is no such thing as "forever". I have addressed this countless times and not just in this thread.

Whatever we advance as far as medicine or computer AI will also not make a forever possible. Bodies wear out, and even though we will be able to find more cures and better operation technology, bodies still wear out. You can only extend, not cure death. And if you manage to simulate human personality it will still only remain a COPY and not the original, once your brain dies you die, a simulation is still not the original.

And regardless, in 5 billion years our sun will run out of energy and our entire solar system will die. If you really think humans will survive that you are fooling yourself. 

You, "Science says this is plausible."

Me, "I'll believe it when I see it."

Faith, is blindly assuming everything will happen just because the idea is appealing to you. The patent office is full of ideas that end up doing nothing.

Science isn't about claiming, it is about proving, so I could care less what you claim is possible, it has to be proven first, not claimed.

Dude, dafuq are you even talking about? You seem to be arguing with the voices in your head or something.

[The Grand Nudger]

Aren't we all?  

[bennyboy]

Aren't we all?  

What's with the emojis all the time?  Little Rikki, give Khemikal his account back!

And to answer your question, I spend maybe 25% of my free time talking to myself. Sometimes a guy needs intelligent conversation, ya know?

[The Grand Nudger]

I like to play with the buttons.

[bennyboy]

I like to play with the buttons.

That's what SHE said!

. . . or. . . errmmmm.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I also sort of agree with him about the singularity in that no amount of intelligent AI can ever emulate conscious AI.

Why?

It might help to tell us your definition of consciousness.

[bennyboy]

I also sort of agree with him about the singularity in that no amount of intelligent AI can ever emulate conscious AI.

Why?

It might help to tell us your definition of consciousness.

qualia

[ignoramus]

I also sort of agree with him about the singularity in that no amount of intelligent AI can ever emulate conscious AI.

Why?

It might help to tell us your definition of consciousness.

"the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings".
Why would my definition be any different to the official definition?

I am not qualified to know enough to make my previous comment. It is just an uninformed opinion.
But I am fascinated to know if we can ever know if an advanced AI can ever experience consciousness.
and if so, can they ever prove it?

We've all got powerful phones. Are they self aware? How much technical complexity is needed for critical mass?
I say only biology can experience it. The human brain is the single most densely complex object in the universe.
(Some scientist said that in a doco I watched not long ago)

[I_am_not_mafia]

"the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings".
Why would my definition be any different to the official definition?

If that's your definition then I see absolutely no reason why an AI could not be conscious. In fact, many forms of embodied AI match that criterion already. The important factor here is that the AI is embodied and situated in the world. So I am not referring to some Big data algorithm running on some server farm somewhere but an agent controller running in a robot that can sense and act within an environment.

But I am fascinated to know if we can ever know if an advanced AI can ever experience consciousness.
and if so, can they ever prove it?

Can we ever prove that we are conscious? Can we prove that an animal is? This is why it is important to define it first, so we have some way of determining whether something is conscious or not.

Personally I don't think that the above definition is adequate. A self driving car matches that definition. I would argue that consciousness requires an agent to be aware of its own internal state. So for example, if you have a robot that has got stuck and its primary algorithm makes it repeat the same failed action repeatedly and not improve its situation, another module observing this behaviour at a higher level over time might take control and try something else. Much like in the fashion of Brookes' subsumption architecture, or the role of cognition when the emotional reaction is to do something silly.

Either way, there is no reason to pre-suppose that we cannot build artificial conscious agents.

[bennyboy]

Can we ever prove that we are conscious? Can we prove that an animal is? This is why it is important to define it first, so we have some way of determining whether something is conscious or not.

No, we can't. And, in fact, I'd say that consciousness is so essential to existence that our inability to objectively observe it doesn't bode well for objective observation as the best way to learn about the mind. I really think we have to define at least some of what "science" means to include methodical self-observation a la the roots of psychology.

Either way, there is no reason to pre-suppose that we cannot build artificial conscious agents.

I agree. But the question is-- how would you know if you did? You could operationalize consciousness in purely objective terms, but that begs the question because it is the subjectivity which makes mind interesting.

It seems to me that neural cyborgs may eventually teach us something-- the ability to add machinery to one's own brain and have some subjective awareness of what that means. Just brainstorming though.