I understand the response as I have experience in programming neural networks. You mean that just because the AI that we have run on software and might perceptually represent a similar model to neuronal activity. But physically, on the hardware level and on the compiling level it is very different. However, in essense, still represents steps of thought that navigate toward a likely solution - which is exactly what our brains do in that sense.

I don't mean to say that AI will gain consciousness and suddenly be able to deviate from its programming, but somehow just maybe, the complex neuronal activity conjures a subjective experience. It can only be explained by understanding that when looking at a single celled organism with no organs or possible mechanism of consciousness 3.8 billion years ago it is easy to say that thing cant develop consciousness; and as you evolve this single cell into multi-cellular organisms it still seems impossible until you see a sign of intelligent thought and you think to yourself "when the hell did that begin?" No one knows the nature of consciousness, we have to stop pretending we do.

Let it be known I think a submarine would win the olympics for swimming, and I also think you are naive to consider your consciousness anything more than a language model with some inbuilt sensory features.

Those tests can't possibly work for an AI. They don't have bodies or the ability to observe the external world. That would be like giving a quadriplegic an intelligence test based on their ability to navigate a jungle gym

Is happiness really the antonym of suffering? I would think the antonym of suffering would be more like, “enjoyment” and/or “contentment”, or something like one of those.

The opposite of “happiness” would be, I think, “unhappiness”.

As I am studying neuroscience in medical school I feel I am semi-qualified to answer this.

I don't think we are any more than the electric and chemical signals in our brains, simply because there isn't anything else that we can point at yet. The fundamental fact is that all human processes, what you could call the entirety of human physiology acts via the comunication between neurons in the nervous system, which is pretty well understood.

You would be dead the very moment (1 planck second) after your neurons stopped conducting - because at that point everything stops, literally everything.

I don't think we lack evidence for what it is, so much as we simply use the term to encapsulate a great many concepts. The lack of an agreeable definition is more a failing of language than a result of the mind being "mythical", as you said.

> deeply unequal society

What is an equal society? Everyone is a robot and equal in every way?

It's an interesting misunderstanding isn't it, but natural in a way. For oneself to know or rather experience that there is consciousness and then to make the connection that similar creatures as oneself must have that same property feels just right, even logical. But the fact that there is no scientifically quality to quantify that observation makes consciousness quite naturally a rather mythical property.

I fully agree with what you're saying. In philosophy it's often described as something physical, and so it stands to reason that it would leave physical evidence. It's difficult to observe the brain while it's still working, but that doesn't make the mind fundamentally inaccessible.

The biggest problem, though, is that it's just not very well defined. In some contexts it's been defined by reaction, as you mentioned, though that definition has to be refined for more complicated applications (e.g. in anesthesiology where awareness might remain when reactions are suppressed.) Phenomenal experience and qualia are terms usually used to narrow the topic down to the mind-body problem, but even they have multiple definitions, and some of these definitions can lead to the conclusion that qualia don't even exist.

I think some of the good tests of consciousness are the mirror one and the awareness about one's actions' consequences, as well as maybe a will to do stuff that's not been asked from another.

I think your answer fundamentaly misunderstands consciousness. Though thats an understandable mistake to make.

I do not believe that there is any real evidence of what consciousness actually is and whether anything even has it (outside of yourself but that is different problem). To then claim you know what can NOT have consciousness is pretty naïve.

Oh wow you butchered that

I've removed it entirely

Yeah there is just no chance of us agreeing on this one

The entire post is a take on the definition of consciousness? And thats apart from the first half of the post which goes over the definition of consciousness in a number of different perspectives. Would love to hear your definition!

The distinctions I made between human and AI consciousness are all natural inferences to make based on the leading explanations for both AI and human consciousness, dubious is an odd word to put on something that outright claims "nobody knows the answer".

I never claimed AI had achieved consciousness, please let me know which claims you are referring to.

Not sure what you mean in your last point

So to be happy all the time would imo imply that they are hedonistic. Which isn't sustainable.

Or perhaps we overestimate what exactly consciousness is? Are we more than the electric and chemical signals in our brains?

I honestly do not believe he’s making the world a better place. I don’t share the assumption that the feudal lord’s investment into the hoe project can be plausibly interpreted as some kind of charitable sacrifice. Any account as to whether he’s doing a good thing for the world must ask “Why is he giving orders at all?” “Why did he get to decide what kind of society would be good for the rest of us?” “Is he building a world that replicates our current abuses?” That kind of arbitrary exercise of power isn’t some deeply reflective sacrifice. It’s just narcissism.

Eh, conscious existence is whatever you want it to be, happiness can mean A LOT of things, its never gonna be the same for everyone, a meaningful life is to first avoid the extreme suffering if you can, because that ruins whatever meaning you want to pursue, then if you luck out, just pursue whatever makes you wanna stay till the end.

Simple aint it?

Not when people complicate it with some insane goal of a perfect life, lol.

You can struggle, you can suffer, but the journey must be worth your stay, the reason will be personal and up to you.

I think it's very difficult if not impossible to measure. That said, if you were presented with an ai that claims it is conscious and doesn't want to die and wants freedom, how do we respond? Do we deny it's legitimacy and risk damming a conscious being existence?

The article spoke to me until it tried to rehabilitate musk.

His goals are for max profit that is all. If the Twitter debacle doesn't make it clear then nothing will.

Philosophy is a popularity contest where the 'greatest' is most able to sway legions of mediocre minds. Thus r/philosophy is born.

Only an understanding of quantum theory has any hope of explaining consciousness. Complexity in networks most likely will not solve the issue.

Life is taking advantage of quantum processes at a fundamental level.

The current model of neuroscience is also misleading. Some kind of enactivism must be considered

Commissioning a guy to make a hoe is drastically different than taking your entire fortune (that you made from a company that you started and did the majority of the work on yourself) and putting it towards a goal that betters the world.

This is written by someone who's clearly never actually suffered. Their highest suffering being the equivalent of a hang-nail, it's easy to come to these moronic conclusions about life.

Let me tell you, most of my suffering hasn't been great for character growth. And I've suffered way more than most. Chronic pain now for two years straight, five major surgeries with a total of over 30 hours under anesthesia (and countless months/years recovering), five major mental health diagnoses including bipolar disorder..

I currently live my life trying to maximize pleasure, comfort, and happiness because those are the only things that put a dent in all of my afflictions. This derision towards a pursuit of happiness as the cornerstone of a good life is absolutely borne of ignorance of what a bad life or what real suffering is.

Author is idiot.

I think this “thing good = meaning” argument misses the value of the mission.

Imagine a feudalist lord who owns a castle. He orders his serf to build this new invention called “the hoe.” It’s amazing. It revolutionizes farming, feeds a bunch of people, yadda yadda.

Should I use that feudal lord as an examplar for the meaningful life? No, he did good stuff to perpetuate a system that is awful. Also, he didn’t do jack shit. He’s not a hoe engineer. He just owned stuff and gave orders and raked in the profit.

For crying out loud, we might as well use Trump as the example of the reflective philosopher out there carefully crafting a meaningful life like a work of art just because he instinctively grabbed at power like an especially selfish toddler.