(DEBATE ME) Is A.I. Conscious,intelligent? Can A.I. replace Coders?

[YoutubeScientist]

You have the same mind set of friend I know that to went to university that the soul doesn't exist and that consciousness is just a computer program.That type of mindset is afraid of death because they believe that consciousness disappears after death.I would sell you come cryogenic services to "save you from death"

do you have empirical evidence of the soul? or do you just believe in it because someone told you to believe in it?
if that's your methodology of coming to a conclusion, then i can say that i believe in unicorns or anything that anyone tells me to believe in.
do you believe in unicorns? if not why so?
because the logic used to arrive at that conclusion would be no different.

 

[sandandkush]

Here’s when it becomes AI (and conscious) as far as I’m concerned; when it comes out with something that nobody programmed it to do.

That would be autonomy: AI making its own decisions and taking actions without human intervention, raising ethical and legal questions about accountability and control.

I don't see how this is possible (at least at the moment).

In this interview, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman discussed that they are monitoring the AI systems and are prepared to make changes or turn them off if needed.

 

[moonshine7000]

do you have empirical evidence of the soul? or do you just believe in it because someone told you to believe in it?
if that's your methodology of coming to a conclusion, then i can say that i believe in unicorns or anything that anyone tells me to believe in.
do you believe in unicorns? if not why so?
because the logic used to arrive at that conclusion would be no different.

The universe is orderly that is why there is underlying intelligence behind it all thing but its unseen and you can't understand it because its way above your intellect .@pewep

 

[YoutubeScientist]

The universe is orderly that is why there is underlying intelligence behind itall thing but its unseen and you can't understand it because its way above your intellect .@pewep

another unjustified presupposition.
how do you know the universe is orderly?
there are so many areas which are not orderly, and are harmful to life and full of chaos, debris, explosions .etc.

whether there is an intelligence behind that or not, is not something you and i know with certainty.
but science managed to successfully explain parts of the universe and other phenomena naturalistically and there seems to be no necessity for an intelligent designer, as far as the evidence goes.

But sure it could be an intelligent designer, an infinite uncaused eternal multiverse, or even a simulation.
the exact answer to that, nobody knows (yourself included).
if you assert that you know, you need to justify that position with evidence or it will remain your personal opinion.

you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to facts.

 

[moonshine7000]

another unjustified presupposition.
how do you know the universe is orderly?
there are so many areas which are not orderly, and are harmful to life and full of chaos, debris, explosions .etc.

whether there is an intelligence behind that or not, is not something you and i know with certainty.
but science managed to successfully explain parts of the universe and other phenomena naturalistically and there seems to be no necessity for an intelligent designer, as far as the evidence goes.

But sure it could be an intelligent designer, an infinite uncaused eternal multiverse, or even a simulation.
the exact answer to that, nobody knows (yourself included).
if you assert that you know, you need to justify that position with evidence or it will remain your personal opinion.

you are entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to facts.

Science doesn't know either, where does life come from ,where was life before the "big bang theory" if there really was a big bang.But people worship science like some sort of religion.

 

[YoutubeScientist]

Science doesn't know either, where does life come from ,where was life before the "big bang theory" if there really was a big bang.But people worship science like some sort of religion.

"Science doesn't know either"
science does not claim it knows what happened before the big bang or who created it. the one who is claiming it positively is you. you pretend that you definitively know that it came from an intelligent designer. so the burden of proof is on you.

"But people worship science like some sort of religion."
science is not a religion. science is a method that is based on evidence, not faith or wishful thinking. it is a method to determine truths about objective reality.
oops calculators work. the fact that calculators work, is it a faith based position? nope. i can repeatedly prove that it works and give consistent results.
a calculator is built on engineering, which is a branch of the scientific method, and any other scientific theory is based on the same principles of repeated observation,experimentation and consistency.
that's why it works and is useful. it is the best method we have to-date to determine objective truths, unless you can show me a better method.

"where does life come from"
even-though we don't have definitive proof of how life formed, we have the best hypothesis which is based on empirical evidence on how life could potentially form as a result of entropy, abiogenesis and natural causes.
life is made up of the most abundant elements available in the universe (not supernatural elements).

the origin of life (abiogenesis hypothesis) is the best explanation to this, based on the evidence we have so far, and not wishful thinking.
the uri miller experiment has already demonstrated the formation of simple organic compounds such as amino acids(which are the building
blocks of life), from inorganic matter, when certain conditions that commonly occur around the universe are simulated.

============================

academic sources related to(uri miller experiment,abiogenesis,origin of life):

The Miller-Urey Experiment – Chemical Evolution:
https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582
https://www.nasa.gov/content/popular-science-introductions-to-the-emergence-of-life
https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/content/uploadFiles/publication_files/Parker2014.pdf
============================

 

[moonshine7000]

"Science doesn't know either"
science does not claim it knows what happened before the big bang or who created it. the one who is claiming it positively is you. you pretend that you definitively know that it came from an intelligent designer. so the burden of proof is on you.

"But people worship science like some sort of religion."
science is not a religion. science is a method that is based on evidence, not faith or wishful thinking. it is a method to determine truths about objective reality.
oops calculators work. the fact that calculators work, is it a faith based position? nope. i can repeatedly prove that it works and give consistent results.
a calculator is built on engineering, which is a branch of the scientific method, and any other scientific theory is based on the same principles of repeated observation,experimentation and consistency.

"where does life come from"
even-though we don't have definitive proof of how life formed, we have the best hypothesis which is based on empirical evidence on how life could potentially form as a result of entropy, abiogenesis and natural causes.
life is made up of the most abundant elements available in the universe (not supernatural elements).

the origin of life (abiogenesis hypothesis) is the best explanation to this based on the evidence we have.
the uri miller experiment has already demonstrated the formation of simple organic compounds such as amino acids(which are the building
blocks of life), from inorganic matter, when certain conditions that commonly occur around the universe are simulated.

============================

academic sources related to(uri miller experiment,abiogenesis,origin of life):

The Miller-Urey Experiment – Chemical Evolution:
https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/?p=582
https://www.nasa.gov/content/popular-science-introductions-to-the-emergence-of-life
https://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/content/uploadFiles/publication_files/Parker2014.pdf
============================

So where the atoms originally came from to form compounds genius?

 

[KHMNTCPR8]

A lot of the words being used in the debate could be defined in multiple ways, so I think at the start of the debate you should define the keywords we're debating here.

I'll give my definitions here at the start of my argument. These definitions are from a scientific view rather than a philosophical view, to limit the boundaries for my argument.
Consciousness is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. [wikipedia]
Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations. [wikipedia]
Awareness is knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. [oxford dictionary]

Awareness has been achieved, clearly.
I will say that Awareness can already be concluded to have been obtained by certain AI (stable diffusion model for example). I don't mean self-awareness, but awareness of situations or facts emerging from a network of neurons.
I claim that stable diffusion has knowledge or perception of different imagery styles, objects, and even situations and is able to recreate images of these. This demonstrates it's capability for awareness.

Sentience, has not been publicly demonstrated, but I think is 100% possible and potentially could be "easy" now.
I don't think there is a publicly released AI that has demonstrated sentience, but based on how hundreds of terabytes of image data can be distilled into a 2gb model file that does not require an internet connection to work, and through stable diffusion understanding the principles behind the raw data (it knowing a cartoon apple, and a photorealistic apple are still the same idea of the word "apple") - I would say that a project using sensory peripherals like cameras and sensors of different types combined with an algorithm or rules to give the program involuntary sensations and feelings - we could say that THAT would be a form of artificial sentience. An AI computer program, connected to sensors, and given a ruleset for interpreting the environment like all animals have, would have artificial sentience at that point because it would sense and feel the world and be capable of generating feelings as determined by the rules set in its mind. This is how all animals operate (humans are animals too).

I don't think current AI has sentience because we haven't forced it to have feelings or sensations yet, but I think this could be done in less than 10 years, and less than 5 years if the top AI companies felt the need to do this (which I don't think they do because it's not necessary at this point, and goes against the logic of keeping AI under control).

Consciousness would require sentience, and due to this our current and publicly available AI's are not conscious.

 

[OttoVonGraff]

Maybe one day! But it will take years to ChatGPT and others replace senior developers. By now, ChatGPT can’t even write a decent code using Python to create a PWA for a shopping list and price comparisons. Let alone a robust application like some Uber.

 

[YoutubeScientist]

So where the atoms originally came from to form compounds genius?

if your question is, the cause of all existence? nobody knows (yourself included).
if its our local observation? sure we know, the singularity of the big bang which is an infinitely dense point. it probably does not even have a beginning and if it does, it is a result of quantum fluctuations.
the best prediction in science based on the evidence we have is, multiple universes. and this arises out of inflation theory and not wishful thinking.
all of these predictions/hypotheses are more reasonable than a creator because it is based on evidence.

leading theories in science all make these predictions based on the current models of cosmology. we have predictions and evidence related to inflation, cosmic microwave background, many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, cyclic universe and other things.etc

===============================================================================
big bang, singularity, multiverse and origins:
===============================================================================

What came before the Big Bang? UB physicist’s new popular science book
explains one leading theory(academic source):


https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2022/03/033.html
===============================================================================

Initial singularity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

key highlights:
"The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before
the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.[2] The instant
immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in
the history of our universe."

===============================================================================
The Big Bang related:
What really happened at our universe's birth?(several academic sources cited in this article to support
the explanations)
Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory:


https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

https://www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang-bouncing-cosmology-theory.html

https://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html
===============================================================================
big bang alternative hypothesis(academic sources):


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/ac1b07/meta

https://www.scirp.org/html/12-2180458_98010.htm
===============================================================================

A brief history of the multiverse(theory of inflationary multiverse)(academic source):


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/aa50e4/meta
===============================================================================
emergent multiverse:


https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl...r_esc=y#v=onepage&q=multiverse theory&f=false
===============================================================================


if your question is "where did atoms and all of existence come from", and if that is your standing ground to challenge me, then i can apply that methodology and challenge you "where did the creator come from?".
if you answer is, "he is eternal and never needed a beginning", then sure my answer to you is "eternal multiverse" , "uncaused singularity cyclic universe". etc
we have multiple predictions, which are atleast based on evidence rather than assumptions built upon assumptions which have no evidence to support it.

 

[moonshine7000]

if your question is, the cause of all existence? nobody knows (yourself included).
if its our local observation? sure we know, the singularity of the big bang which is an infinitely dense point. it probably does not even have a beginning and if it does, it is a result of quantum fluctuations.
the best prediction in science based on the evidence we have is, multiple universes. and this arises out of inflation theory and not wishful thinking.
all of these predictions/hypotheses are more reasonable than a creator because it is based on evidence.

leading theories in science all make these predictions based on the current models of cosmology. we have predictions and evidence related to inflation, cosmic microwave background, many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, cyclic universe and other things.etc

===============================================================================
big bang, singularity, multiverse and origins:
===============================================================================

What came before the Big Bang? UB physicist’s new popular science book
explains one leading theory(academic source):


https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2022/03/033.html
===============================================================================

Initial singularity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

key highlights:
"The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before
the Big Bang[1] and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.[2] The instant
immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in
the history of our universe."

===============================================================================
The Big Bang related:
What really happened at our universe's birth?(several academic sources cited in this article to support
the explanations)
Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory:


https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html

https://www.space.com/38982-no-big-bang-bouncing-cosmology-theory.html

https://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-theory-alternatives-infographic.html
===============================================================================
big bang alternative hypothesis(academic sources):


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/ac1b07/meta

https://www.scirp.org/html/12-2180458_98010.htm
===============================================================================

A brief history of the multiverse(theory of inflationary multiverse)(academic source):


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6633/aa50e4/meta
===============================================================================
emergent multiverse:


https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl...r_esc=y#v=onepage&q=multiverse theory&f=false
===============================================================================


if your question is "where did atoms and all of existence come from", and if that is your standing ground to challenge me, then i can apply that methodology and challenge you "where did the creator come from?".
if you answer is, "he is eternal and never needed a beginning", then sure my answer to you is "eternal multiverse" , "uncaused singularity cyclic universe". etc
we have multiple predictions, which are atleast based on evidence rather than assumptions built upon assumptions which have no evidence to support it.

So how to do know these theories actually took place when there is no eye witness to collect "evidence" and where did the first man of science got his degree from

 

[YoutubeScientist]

A lot of the words being used in the debate could be defined in multiple ways, so I think at the start of the debate you should define the keywords we're debating here.

I'll give my definitions here at the start of my argument. These definitions are from a scientific view rather than a philosophical view, to limit the boundaries for my argument.
Consciousness is sentience and awareness of internal and external existence. [wikipedia]
Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations. [wikipedia]
Awareness is knowledge or perception of a situation or fact. [oxford dictionary]

Awareness has been achieved, clearly.
I will say that Awareness can already be concluded to have been obtained by certain AI (stable diffusion model for example). I don't mean self-awareness, but awareness of situations or facts emerging from a network of neurons.
I claim that stable diffusion has knowledge or perception of different imagery styles, objects, and even situations and is able to recreate images of these. This demonstrates it's capability for awareness.

Sentience, has not been publicly demonstrated, but I think is 100% possible and potentially could be "easy" now.
I don't think there is a publicly released AI that has demonstrated sentience, but based on how hundreds of terabytes of image data can be distilled into a 2gb model file that does not require an internet connection to work, and through stable diffusion understanding the principles behind the raw data (it knowing a cartoon apple, and a photorealistic apple are still the same idea of the word "apple") - I would say that a project using sensory peripherals like cameras and sensors of different types combined with an algorithm or rules to give the program involuntary sensations and feelings - we could say that THAT would be a form of artificial sentience. An AI computer program, connected to sensors, and given a ruleset for interpreting the environment like all animals have, would have artificial sentience at that point because it would sense and feel the world and be capable of generating feelings as determined by the rules set in its mind. This is how all animals operate (humans are animals too).

I don't think current AI has sentience because we haven't forced it to have feelings or sensations yet, but I think this could be done in less than 10 years, and less than 5 years if the top AI companies felt the need to do this (which I don't think they do because it's not necessary at this point, and goes against the logic of keeping AI under control).

Consciousness would require sentience, and due to this our current and publicly available AI's are not conscious.

consciousness does not necessitate feelings.from the scientific studies, it is related to the input
data and the flexible response mechanism.
people with locked in syndrome are completely paralyzed but still aware.
a person with local anesthesia can be paralyzed but still aware.
the conscious entity is still aware because of input data(external stimuli) coming through the eyes.
this can be compared to input data an AI receives for the process of learning.


Locked-in syndrome:


https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-of-consciousness/

=================================================================


Consciousness, Sapience and Sentience(academic source):


https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/10/6/254/pdf

key highlights:
"Sapience and sentience are autonomous attributes of consciousness"
(nowhere does consciousness necessitate sentience, but is is rather an attribute or quality of consciousness).

=================================================================

how consciousness is more dependent on the input data/information and task relevancy:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122207/

key highlights from the academic source about it:

"consciousness is solely information in various forms. Consciousness is associated with a
flexible response mechanism (FRM) for decision-making, planning, and generally responding
in nonautomatic ways. The FRM generates responses by manipulating information and, to function
effectively, its data input must be restricted to task-relevant information"

"when important information is missing from consciousness, functions of the FRM are adversely
affected; both of which indicate that consciousness is the input data to the FRM. Qualitative
and quantitative information (shape, size, location, etc.) are incorporated into the input
data by a qualia array of colors, sounds, and so on, which makes the input conscious. This
view of the biological function of consciousness provides an explanation why we have experiences;
why we have emotional and other feelings, and why their loss is associated with poor
decision-making; why blindsight patients do not spontaneously initiate responses to events
in their blind field; why counter-habitual actions are only possible when the intended action
is in mind; and the reason for inattentional blindness."

=================================================================

(you can't know if computers are not conscious and how it is an emergent phenomena)(academic source):


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091309/

key highlight of this academic journal:
"A number of assumptions are needed to handle the fact that a brain's consciousness
can only be measured indirectly through first person reports, which can also be generated
by systems that are not typically thought to be conscious, such as computers. It is also
necessary to assume that consciousness cannot vary independently of our measurement of it,
which would undermine our ability to study consciousness scientifically."

=================================================================

"Consciousness would require sentience, and due to this our current and publicly available AI's are not conscious."

when you assert that AI's are not conscious, you need to prove that. you can't even prove if other humans are conscious, or backup your assertions with scientific academic sources.
you need to prove that animals are definitively conscious or that would be a philosophical assumption(not empirical proof).
you could instead correct that statement by saying "i think it is not likely to be conscious" or "i think it is likely to be conscious" and you can specify why.


more academic sources about the problem with consciousness not capable of being
empirically provable,and that it is an subjective internal state:
Why Isn't Consciousness Empirically Observable? Emotional Purposes As Basis For Self-Organization:


https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mind/MindElli.htm

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/steen/cogweb/Abstracts/Baars_88.html

=================================================================


we have multiple definitions of consciousness, the most basic form of it being, "the state of being aware".


Cambridge:
"the state of understanding and realizing something":


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consciousness


oxford:
definition 1:
"the state of being able to use your senses and mental powers to understand what is happening"

definition 2:
"the state of being aware of something":


https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/consciousness

 

[YoutubeScientist]

So how to do know these theories actually took place when there is no eye witness to collect "evidence" and where did the first man of science got his degree from

by the use of direct or indirect evidence.
is the only way to confirm a murder trial, by, the witnesses being present at the event of murder? or, can you use "indirect evidence", such as fingerprints or cctv footage to confirm that the murder happened?
if you can, then so can you in science, we can make use of direct and indirect evidence.

when you take a telescope and look light years away, you are looking into the past. this is a known fact and we know that because of the speed of light limitations.

 

[moonshine7000]

by the use of direct or indirect evidence.
is the only way to confirm a murder trial, is by witnesses being present at the event of murder, or can you use "indirect evidence", such as fingerprints or cctv footage to confirm that the murder happened?
if you can, then so can you in science, we can make use of direct and indirect evidence.

when you take a telescope and look light years away, you are looking into the past. this is a known fact and we know that because of the speed of light limitations.light

The speed of light is a theory created by Albert Einstein but that doesn't make it true.He is a theoretical physicist.

 

[YoutubeScientist]

The speed of light is a theory created by Albert Einstein but that doesn't make it true.He is a theoretical physicist.

learn the definition of a scientific theory and get back. a scientific theory is not merely an idea like how the word "theory" is used in other subjects. it is an embodiment of facts, laws etc.
a theory is an expanded explanation of the known facts.
eg: germ theory of disease, theory of evolution.
all of those theories are confirmed and have mountains of evidence to support it, but it is still called a "theory" , and that does not mean that germs do not exist.
no amount of justification of a scientific theory will make it a law or a fact, instead it contains those facts.

a mere idea in science is a conjecture:


A Conjecture in science and hypothesis differences:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389200/

key highlights:
"The word conjecture is defined as an opinion based on incomplete information"
"Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture that can be tested by experiment or
observation, and consensus emerges when other interested colleagues agree that
evidence supports a hypothesis that has explanatory value"
"in scientific research there is a natural progression from conjecture to hypothesis
to consensus"

=======================================================

the speed of light is measured, confirmed and proved beyond reasonable doubt. so i'm not sure where you are getting your information from and assuming that we don't know the speed of light.



the academic sources related to speed of light:

Lightyear:


https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/faq/26/what-is-a-light-year/

speed of light:


https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/2605

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763133/

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_fast_is_the_speed.htm

=======================================================

 

[moonshine7000]

learn the definition of a scientific theory and get back. a scientific theory is not merely an idea like how the word "theory" is used in other subjects. it is an embodiment of facts, laws etc.
a theory is an expanded explanation of the known facts.
eg: germ theory of disease, theory of evolution.
all of those theories are confirmed and have mountains of evidence to support it, but it is still called a "theory" , and that does not mean that germs do not exist.
no amount of justification of a scientific theory will make it a law or a fact, instead it contains those facts.

a mere idea in science is a conjecture:


A Conjecture in science and hypothesis differences:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389200/

key highlights:
"The word conjecture is defined as an opinion based on incomplete information"
"Conjecture is an idea, hypothesis is a conjecture that can be tested by experiment or
observation, and consensus emerges when other interested colleagues agree that
evidence supports a hypothesis that has explanatory value"
"in scientific research there is a natural progression from conjecture to hypothesis
to consensus"

=======================================================

the speed of light is measured, confirmed and proved beyond reasonable doubt. so i'm not sure where you are getting your information from and assuming that we don't know the speed of light.



the academic sources related to speed of light:

Lightyear:


https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/faq/26/what-is-a-light-year/

speed of light:


https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/2605

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763133/

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/how_fast_is_the_speed.htm

=======================================================

Kerry Mullis the Nobel prize biochemist the creator of the PCR method doesn't believe in the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis because couldn't find conclusive evidence on this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/

 

[noellarkin]

OP have you tried fine tuning your own GPT-J, and testing out all the checkpoints you create, seeing how the AI evolves as you feed it data, how it starts pattern-matching, and if you overtrain it, how it starts "overfitting" if you keep training on similar datasets over and over.
My personal opinion - - a result of my experience using and training these things, is that it is a complex markov algorithm.
I'd personally be wary of hyper-intellectualizing AI and anthropomising it. Regarding whether AI is "concious" or "sentient/self-aware" - - I'm not sure whether it even matters. We're surrounded by billions of concious humans that we don't give a damn about, I don't see how introducing some new concious beings into the mix changes anything.

 

[YoutubeScientist]

Kerry Mullis the Nobel prize biochemist the creator of the PCR method doesn't believe in the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis because couldn't find conclusive evidence on this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/

speed of light is not a hypothesis and is confirmed. it also has nothing to do with AIDS, lol.
so again your statement is false regarding this you said earlier:

"The speed of light is a theory created by Albert Einstein but that doesn't make it true.He is a theoretical physicist"

 

[noellarkin]

You have the same mind set of friend I know that to went to university that the soul doesn't exist and that consciousness is just a computer program.That type of mindset is afraid of death because they believe that consciousness disappears after death.I would sell you come cryogenic services to "save you from death"

yeah I've seen this trend among the transhumanists in particular. Two tendencies - - 1) reduce all aspects of experience to technological metaphors 2) to talk about technological singularity as the apotheosis of human advancement.

 

[KHMNTCPR8]

consciousness does not necessitate feelings.from the scientific studies, it is related to the input
data and the flexible response mechanism.
people with locked in syndrome are completely paralyzed but still aware.
a person with local anesthesia can be paralyzed but still aware.
the conscious entity is still aware because of input data(external stimuli) coming through the eyes.
this can be compared to input data an AI receives for the process of learning.


Locked-in syndrome:


https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-of-consciousness/

=================================================================


Consciousness, Sapience and Sentience(academic source):


https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/10/6/254/pdf

key highlights:
"Sapience and sentience are autonomous attributes of consciousness"
(nowhere does consciousness necessitate sentience, but is is rather an attribute or quality of consciousness).

=================================================================

how consciousness is more dependent on the input data/information and task relevancy:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122207/

key highlights from the academic source about it:

"consciousness is solely information in various forms. Consciousness is associated with a
flexible response mechanism (FRM) for decision-making, planning, and generally responding
in nonautomatic ways. The FRM generates responses by manipulating information and, to function
effectively, its data input must be restricted to task-relevant information"

"when important information is missing from consciousness, functions of the FRM are adversely
affected; both of which indicate that consciousness is the input data to the FRM. Qualitative
and quantitative information (shape, size, location, etc.) are incorporated into the input
data by a qualia array of colors, sounds, and so on, which makes the input conscious. This
view of the biological function of consciousness provides an explanation why we have experiences;
why we have emotional and other feelings, and why their loss is associated with poor
decision-making; why blindsight patients do not spontaneously initiate responses to events
in their blind field; why counter-habitual actions are only possible when the intended action
is in mind; and the reason for inattentional blindness."

=================================================================

(you can't know if computers are not conscious and how it is an emergent phenomena)(academic source):


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4091309/

key highlight of this academic journal:
"A number of assumptions are needed to handle the fact that a brain's consciousness
can only be measured indirectly through first person reports, which can also be generated
by systems that are not typically thought to be conscious, such as computers. It is also
necessary to assume that consciousness cannot vary independently of our measurement of it,
which would undermine our ability to study consciousness scientifically."

=================================================================

"Consciousness would require sentience, and due to this our current and publicly available AI's are not conscious."

when you assert that AI's are not conscious, you need to prove that. you can't even prove if other humans are conscious, or backup your assertions with scientific academic sources.
you need to prove that animals are definitively conscious or that would be a philosophical assumption(not empirical proof).
you could instead correct that statement by saying "i think it is not likely to be conscious" or "i think it is likely to be conscious" and you can specify why.


more academic sources about the problem with consciousness not capable of being
empirically provable,and that it is an subjective internal state:
Why Isn't Consciousness Empirically Observable? Emotional Purposes As Basis For Self-Organization:


https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mind/MindElli.htm

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/steen/cogweb/Abstracts/Baars_88.html

=================================================================


we have multiple definitions of consciousness, the most basic form of it being, "the state of being aware".


Cambridge:
"the state of understanding and realizing something":


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consciousness


oxford:
definition 1:
"the state of being able to use your senses and mental powers to understand what is happening"

definition 2:
"the state of being aware of something":


https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/consciousness

You said:
"when you assert that AI's are not conscious, you need to prove that."

My rebuttal:
Under my defined scope of consciousness (sentience and awareness of internal and external existence), we have not seen a publicly available AI system that includes all those capabilities in one combined system for this definition of consciousness to be applicable.

You said:
"you can't even prove if other humans are conscious"

My rebuttal:
Yes, I can but that is IF we are both debating on the definition for consciousness I've stated. If not then we cannot effectively debate further. Since you have not defined consciousness for your side of this debate, we likely won't reach a constructive resolution.
If I person under stringent testing, displays empirical proof that they are aware of external stimuli, and also are capable of speech, and are capable of thought as measured under a Functional MRI (FRMI) that would meet the criteria I have defined for consciousness in my argument.

You said:
you need to prove that animals are definitively conscious

My rebuttal:
I'll use a dog as an example. They have senses which allow them to experience an awareness of the external environment. [1] This checks off the awareness of external existence requirement.
A dog is also aware of its own body [2]. This checks off the awareness of internal existence requirement.

They also have brains and bodies which are capable of providing sensations of various sensations and emotions, and it is testable and repeatable to give them emotions through various natural or forced methods which changes their behavior based on changing their emotional state. [3] This checks off the sentience requirement because sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations.

Changes in behavior after a change in emotional state (measured by its change in biochemistry) denotes the fact that the biological system has experienced either a feeling or a sensation. Feelings are sensations of emotion, and sensations are physical sensations. A dog who has to experience intense pain will behave as if it just experienced something painful. A dog who has just experience intense happiness will display behavior that corresponds to that. These changes in behavior produce predictable behaviors immediately after which show the animal has experienced the change and is no active differently that it would if it did not experience it.


Additional statement:
I will make a claim here that artificial sentience can be recreated for an AI system without the use of biochemistry. The biochemicals involved in changes to emotional state are a biological method of information flow in a biological entity. [4]

In an artificially intelligent system, we can use other means for information flow, which will result in a change of behavior based on emotional inhibition or uninhibition of various behavior likelihoods. For example, an AI system who's behavior has been modified by a state similar to fear is more likely to output sentences that will be marked as fearful under a sentiment scoring. Likewise, with other states we can determine it's emotional state by running a sentiment score on the text output. We have yet to see a system display this characteristic publicly.
This is not to say that telling ChatGPT to output text in a fearful way is equivalent to sentience. I'm saying if the system can generate it's own emotion states based on external and internal awareness, and those states automatically change the output behavior of the AI, then I am willing to call that artificial sentience, or non-biological sentience.





1. Canine Olfaction: Physiology, Behavior, and Possibilities for Practical Applications - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8388720/
2. Dogs (Canis familiaris) recognize their own body as a physical obstacle - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82309-x3. Perspectives on assessing the emotional behavior of animals with behavior problems - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S23521546163025224. Biochemical Measurements in the Study of Emotion - https://www.jstor.org/stable/40062754