A Return to the Topic of Consciousness

[Atla]

A few species on Earth seem to be self-aware. Say humans, some great apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, maybe a handful others. And the really interesting case, corvids, I think the study or corvids has the best chance of unlocking the secret of self-awareness.

What about cephalopods? Do they appear to possess self-awareness? I know some of them can do some remarkable things including unscrew the lid of a jar they are trapped in.

I don't know.. been wondering about that too..
If they are self-aware, it could be some wildly different form of self-awareness. Maybe it makes no sense at all to include the word 'self' here, or maybe it should be plural, 'selves-awareness'? 'selves-awarenesses'?

[Age]

Some computers can do amazing things also. I wonder if computers do or can have conscious experience like we do.

It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do.

You say, "It's impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that we have" and you refer to "conscious experience" as an example of one of our abilities. Is it correct to say, then, that it is impossible for computers to have conscious experience?

i have not looked into this enough to be able to answer and clarify for you, exactly.

And if it is correct to say that, then why is it "impossible"?

Because computers are not able to learn, understand, nor reason absolutely every thing, like human beings can.

What limitations do computers have to becoming "conscious" that we humans don't possess?

If you are meaning, 'What limitations do computers have to become fully conscious, that you human beings do possess?

Then, what you human beings possess, which computers do not possess, and which no other known animal possesses also, is the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.

Is it because of the material that computers are made out of?

Maybe, but then again maybe not. But, I know it is because of what human beings possess, which computers do not.

Or is it because of some other reason?

It is because of the ability of the computer, or 'lack there of' if on prefers.

[Age]

Are we human beings just "meat machines" as one notable philosopher (forgotten which one) once put it? And if we are machines that are made of meat and we are conscious beings, then are other machines that are made of things other than meat also possibly "conscious beings"? And what is "consciousness"? How can we know if something is "conscious" or not?

Meat machine -
meat is the flesh of a mammal and generally no longer present in the whole organism and no longer alive, meant for eating. So, it certainly comes nowhere near to describing us and not everything in us could be meat and certainly isn't while we're walking around.
machine - machines are made for purposes by, so far in our knowledge, humans. No machine is as complicated as any of us. So, it's kind off.

I mean, that's me looking at it literally. In a poem, while lamenting, as an outburst... sure, maybe. But as a definition it's terrible and one, if not intended to deflate, minimize, shame the reader, would be a insult to do that.

I concur that it does seem demeaning to us to call us "meat machines".

It could have also been expressed, that way, to just get you human beings to just 'look at', and/or to just 'see' things in a different way or from a different perspective, without have any 'demeaning' qualities at all about it.

I was listening to a lecture on the topic of philosophy of mind years ago and in the lecture, the professor cited some other philosopher who used the term "meat machines" to describe human beings.

So called "professors" and/or "teachers" do have a habit of 'citing' 'others', which could be a sign of lack of knowledge on the subject or topic "them" 'self'.

For obviously just because some person, or any person for that matter, says or claims some thing, then this does not make the thing claimed, in and of itself true, nor even wrong.

All things 'stand on their own', as some might say here. But, are only 'known' through and by you human beings.

And, how the Accuracy and Correctness, of all things, is obtained, and how what is 'Objectively True and Right' is obtained, is really a very, very simple and easy process, in deed.

When I studied Philosophy of Mind in a college classroom,

When you studied the 'love-of-wisdom of Mind', or some other 'philosophy of Mind, in a college classroom, what did you actually learn in, and take away from, that classroom, about the Mind, Itself?

I was fascinated by the question of what is consciousness or why do we (or "I" to be solipsistic for a moment) have conscious experience but presumably a computer made of plastic and silicone, etc. does not?

Did you ever ask any one, including a "teacher" or "professor" in that classroom or anywhere outside of that classroom?

If yes, then what answer did they or it give you?

But, if no, then why have you, still, not asked any one 'this question' here?

Or is it possible to create a conscious machine using plastic and silicone, etc.?

Again, have you asked absolutely any one?

If yes, then what response did they give you?

And if it were, how would we ever be able to discern if the machine was indeed conscious or not?

By what it tells you.

I mean, would we ask it if it's conscious?

you could if you wanted to, but if you would, or not, then only you would know.

And if we did and it said, "yes" does that mean we 'programmed' it to say 'yes' or did it say 'yes' because it was conscious?

I suggest you just 'listen' to it first, 'hear' what it has to say, and then, and only then, challenge, and/or ask, it some clarifying questions. That is; if you are not believing what it is telling you.

I feel like the field of AI is propelling us into a future that is beyond anything we've ever yet experienced

Well, if 'you and others' have not yet ever experienced some thing, like so-called and Wrongly called "artificial intelligence", before, and the Falsely called "artificial intelligence" comes along, then it goes without saying that 'you and those others' will experience some thing beyond 'what you and them' ever had before.

This exact same phenomena applied when computers, internet, cellular phones, phones, televisions, airplanes, radios, horseless vehicles, and print came along, originally.

And, all of 'those fields' could have had the appearance of 'propelling 'you human beings' into a future that was, literally, beyond any thing that you had ever yet experienced, previously.

and that it will raise ethical concerns that we only imagined before their invention.

Did any of those things I listed above not raise 'ethical concerns', as well? Which, you human beings had only, (and even had never even), imagined before each of their inventions?

[Age]

Some computers can do amazing things also. I wonder if computers do or can have conscious experience like we do.

It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do.

Gary C: Is it possible that computers (albeit perhaps extremely sophisticated ones) are "aware"?

It is 'possible'.

Could you explain what you mean in your two responses above?

Yes,

'It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do', because no known thing to human beings could ever have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings can.

And, 'It is 'possible' that computers are aware' because it is 'possible' that non animals could be 'aware', that plants could be 'aware', and/or even other things could be 'aware'. Therefore, it is 'possible' that computers could be, or are, 'aware', also.

If you need, or want, any further explanation of what I mean above here, in my two responses here, or, in fact, in absolutely any thing I say or write then, more specific questioning goes a long, long, long way.

[Flannel Jesus]

It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do.

Gary C: Is it possible that computers (albeit perhaps extremely sophisticated ones) are "aware"?

It is 'possible'.

Could you explain what you mean in your two responses above?

Yes,

'It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do', because no known thing to human beings could ever have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings can.

And, 'It is 'possible' that computers are aware' because it is 'possible' that non animals could be 'aware', that plants could be 'aware', and/or even other things could be 'aware'. Therefore, it is 'possible' that computers could be, or are, 'aware', also.

If you need, or want, any further explanation of what I mean above here, in my two responses here, or, in fact, in absolutely any thing I say or write then, more specific questioning goes a long, long, long way.

How about some actual arguments that that's the case, instead of just stating it?

[Iwannaplato]

It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do.

Gary C: Is it possible that computers (albeit perhaps extremely sophisticated ones) are "aware"?

It is 'possible'.

Could you explain what you mean in your two responses above?

Yes,

'It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do', because no known thing to human beings could ever have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings can.

And, 'It is 'possible' that computers are aware' because it is 'possible' that non animals could be 'aware', that plants could be 'aware', and/or even other things could be 'aware'. Therefore, it is 'possible' that computers could be, or are, 'aware', also.

If you need, or want, any further explanation of what I mean above here, in my two responses here, or, in fact, in absolutely any thing I say or write then, more specific questioning goes a long, long, long way.

1) What do you base your conclusions on?
2) Do you think that animals merely could be aware, or do you think that they are aware?

[Age]

Are we human beings just "meat machines" as one notable philosopher (forgotten which one) once put it?

Yes

Okay.

So, is this the actual irrefutable Truth?

If yes, then are you sure?

But, if this is not the actual irrefutable Truth, then is just what the one here known as "atla" thinks or believes is true?

If yes, and 'you', a human being, is made up of meat, bone, teeth, hair, finger nails, and water, then how, exactly, are 'you' just a 'meat machine', only?

And if we are machines that are made of meat and we are conscious beings, then are other machines that are made of things other than meat also possibly "conscious beings"?

Yes

And what is "consciousness"?

Which consciousness? Here, the relevant consciousness is probably the self-awareness.[/quote]

What is the 'relevant consciousness', exactly, or even supposedly?

And, what is the 'relevant consciousness' even 'relevant' to, exactly, or meant to be 'relevant' to, anyway?

And, are you aware that when you say and use the word 'probably', then this means that 'it' could also be False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, as well? Which means that so-called 'relevant consciousness' might not be the 'self-awareness' at all. And, to work out if it is or not, one only has to 'know' what the term and phrase 'self-awareness means and is in reference to, exactly, first.

Also, how many different types of 'consciousness' are there, to you, "atla"?

A few species on Earth seem to be self-aware. Say humans, some great apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, maybe a handful others. And the really interesting case, corvids, I think the study or corvids has the best chance of unlocking the secret of self-awareness.

For one of 'the species', which cannot yet even answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then the claim that 'it' or 'that species is 'self-aware' is, obviously, Truly hypocritical, and contradictory.

How can we know if something is "conscious" or not?

No surefire way.

Are you absolutely sure of this "atla"?

Or, is this just another one of your deceptive attempts to come across as though you 'know' answers, but in Truth you actually do not know at all.

Again, are you 100% absolutely sure and have no doubt at all that there is 'no surefire way', at all, how 'you', a yet to know what 'itself' is thing', can 'know' if something is 'conscious' or not?

If you, still, want to insist that there is 'no surefire way', then 'you', "yourself", are not even 'sure' that 'you', and or "your" 'self', is even 'conscious' or not, right?

Self-aware things tend to umm behave somewehat like umm entities? Recognize themselves in mirrors and act accordingly?

That this Truly 'old' way of 'self-recognizing' and/or 'self-awareness' was, still, how some people 'saw' what the 'self' is, in the days when this is being written, would not have been some people still believed or thought true, if it was not 'seen' expressed here.

[Age]

Could you explain what you mean in your two responses above?

Yes,

'It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do', because no known thing to human beings could ever have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings can.

And, 'It is 'possible' that computers are aware' because it is 'possible' that non animals could be 'aware', that plants could be 'aware', and/or even other things could be 'aware'. Therefore, it is 'possible' that computers could be, or are, 'aware', also.

If you need, or want, any further explanation of what I mean above here, in my two responses here, or, in fact, in absolutely any thing I say or write then, more specific questioning goes a long, long, long way.

How about some actual arguments that that's the case, instead of just stating it?

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

[Iwannaplato]

Yes,

'It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do', because no known thing to human beings could ever have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings can.

And, 'It is 'possible' that computers are aware' because it is 'possible' that non animals could be 'aware', that plants could be 'aware', and/or even other things could be 'aware'. Therefore, it is 'possible' that computers could be, or are, 'aware', also.

If you need, or want, any further explanation of what I mean above here, in my two responses here, or, in fact, in absolutely any thing I say or write then, more specific questioning goes a long, long, long way.

How about some actual arguments that that's the case, instead of just stating it?

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

In English, at the time this is being written, the phrase How about, used in the way Flannel Jesus did, includes a request for what comes after. This would be obvious to most actively social Americans, for example. Perhaps you are not American, but now you know.

[Age]

Could you explain what you mean in your two responses above?

Yes,

'It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do', because no known thing to human beings could ever have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings can.

And, 'It is 'possible' that computers are aware' because it is 'possible' that non animals could be 'aware', that plants could be 'aware', and/or even other things could be 'aware'. Therefore, it is 'possible' that computers could be, or are, 'aware', also.

If you need, or want, any further explanation of what I mean above here, in my two responses here, or, in fact, in absolutely any thing I say or write then, more specific questioning goes a long, long, long way.

1) What do you base your conclusions on?

The fact that computers, nor any known, to you human being, thing could possess the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing. And, the fact that 'this ability' is what is 'needed' to have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings have.

2) Do you think that animals merely could be aware, or do you think that they are aware?

Obviously, animals 'are aware'.

[Iwannaplato]

The fact that computers, nor any known, to you human being, thing could possess the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing. And, the fact that 'this ability' is what is 'needed' to have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings have.

It seems to me you simply reasserted your position in a new paraphrase. How do you know what current computers are capable of and not capable of?

Obviously, animals 'are aware'.

Do you know what their awareness is like and not like? What their conscious experience is like and not like?

[Flannel Jesus]

Yes,

'It is impossible for computers to have the 'amazing' abilities that you human beings have. Like, for example, 'conscious experiences', like you do', because no known thing to human beings could ever have 'conscious experiences' like you human beings can.

And, 'It is 'possible' that computers are aware' because it is 'possible' that non animals could be 'aware', that plants could be 'aware', and/or even other things could be 'aware'. Therefore, it is 'possible' that computers could be, or are, 'aware', also.

If you need, or want, any further explanation of what I mean above here, in my two responses here, or, in fact, in absolutely any thing I say or write then, more specific questioning goes a long, long, long way.

How about some actual arguments that that's the case, instead of just stating it?

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

That's... what just happened, you goofball. Quit talking about doing it and do it.

[Flannel Jesus]

How about some actual arguments that that's the case, instead of just stating it?

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

In English, at the time this is being written, the phrase How about, used in the way Flannel Jesus did, includes a request for what comes after. This would be obvious to most actively social Americans, for example. Perhaps you are not American, but now you know.

Hilarious that he doesn't understand the language conventions of the language he chooses to communicate in, in the days when this was written.

[Age]

How about some actual arguments that that's the case, instead of just stating it?

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

In English, at the time this is being written, the phrase How about, used in the way Flannel Jesus did, includes a request for what comes after. This would be obvious to most actively social Americans, for example. Perhaps you are not American, but now you know.

If you say so.

So, how about some actual arguments about how it is possible to provide actual arguments that prove one thing to one who believes otherwise?

Once I have had some actual arguments, presented to me about how one can only go about presenting actual arguments to those who believe or disbelieve things, then I will 'know' how to provide 'actual arguments' that 'that' is the case.

Also, how about some actual clarification that one has, fully, understood what 'that', 'the case', claimed is, exactly, first?

After all providing 'actual arguments that 'that' is 'the case' to someone who has not yet shown any sign at all that it has even understood that 'that' is the same 'that', which was said and claimed, in the first place.

Also, and let 'us' not forget that 'actual arguments' can be nothing more than just unsound, and/or invalid arguments which, to me, are just a waste of time' and some thing that is best not repeated, unless, of course, to show what 'not to do'.

So, how about some sound and valid arguments be presented here, in this forum, as well?

P1: For a computer to have 'conscious experience' like human beings do, then computers would need the ability that human beings have, which allows them to have the 'conscious experience' that they do.
P2. The ability that human beings have, which allows human beings to have the 'conscious experience' that they do, comes from 'intelligence', itself.
P3. 'Intelligence' is; having the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.
P4. Computers do not have 'intelligence', itself. Computers do not have the ability to learn, understand, and reason every thing.
C: Therefore, it is impossible for computers to have 'conscious experience', like human beings do.

Now, how I am supposed to provide 'actual arguments' that it is possible that computers 'are aware', other than just ask, if absolutely any one 'knows', irrefutably, how it could be 'impossible' that it is 'possible that computers are aware', then will you please provide your sound and valid argument, here?

P1. Human bodies are made up of matter. And, it is said that human bodies, or that what is within human bodies 'are aware'.
P2. Computers are made up of the exact same matter.
P3. If the matter 'is aware', or 'that', which is within matter 'is aware'.
C: Then, it is 'possible' that computers, and everything else for that matter, and/or 'that', which is within matter, 'is aware', as well.

Now, do these 'actual arguments' that 'that' is 'the case' suffice, or 'No'?

[Age]

How about some actual arguments that that's the case, instead of just stating it?

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

That's... what just happened, you goofball. Quit talking about doing it and do it.

As I said, I have already done what was asked for.

Did you miss where and when I already said and wrote this?