Are we conscious beings?

[Noax]

when you said and wrote, 'If 'you' could do the former, [that is; program a robot to 'think' like you human beings 'think'?

When you USED the 'you' word, above here, then what were you 'thinking about', EXACTLY?

Whatever entity programmed this hypothetical human-feeling robot, and you balked at the wrong word. It is already an unreasonable presumption that this robot will be something that is meaningfully programmed at all, very much like nobody programs actual people. Running code is so old school, so inefficient.

Also, who and/or what else could KNOW HOW 'you' human beings 'think'?

What do you mean by 'else' there? The word implies that something has this understanding, and that you're asking about what second thing could know how this works.

Turns out knowing how it works is unnecessary to do it. My wife successfully createed (with only some tiny help from me) a thing that thinks almost like a human, all without her knowing how said thinking is actually done.

In other words what else could KNOW HOW to program to 'think' like you human beings 'think', besides you human beings of course?

That question implies that human beings know how to program this sort of thing.

[Age]

when you said and wrote, 'If 'you' could do the former, [that is; program a robot to 'think' like you human beings 'think'?

When you USED the 'you' word, above here, then what were you 'thinking about', EXACTLY?

Whatever entity programmed this hypothetical human-feeling robot, and you balked at the wrong word.

1. So, what do you IMAGINE even could program a robot to 'think' or 'feel' like you human beings 'think' or 'feel', BESIDES A 'human being'?

2. What even is the so-called 'wrong word', which you CLAIM I so-called 'balked at', EXACTLY?

It is already an unreasonable presumption that this robot will be something that is meaningfully programmed at all, very much like nobody programs actual people. Running code is so old school, so inefficient.

Well considering the Fact that I NEVER had 'that presumption', then that leaves you HAVING 'that presumption', here, ONLY.

Also, who and/or what else could KNOW HOW 'you' human beings 'think'?

What do you mean by 'else' there? The word implies that something has this understanding, and that you're asking about what second thing could know how this works.

OF COURSE. BECAUSE 'you', human beings, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE 'the, or some, understanding' of HOW 'you', human beings, 'think'.

I ASKED you, 'What ELSE?', BECAUSE 'what else' could KNOW HOW you human beings 'think'. I ASKED 'this' BECAUSE you CLAIMED that there COULD BE some OTHER 'thing', or something ELSE, BESIDES you human beings, which could be INFERRED in YOUR QUESTION, AND, in MY ANSWER/RESPONSE.

Turns out knowing how it works is unnecessary to do it.

Turns out KNOWING HOW it works IS NECESSARY TO DO it.

My wife successfully createed (with only some tiny help from me) a thing that thinks almost like a human, all without her knowing how said thinking is actually done.

If you REALLY WANT TO CLAIM that what you call, 'your wife", does NOT KNOW HOW 'thinking' in you human beings is ACTUALLY DONE, then so be it. But, 'that human being' MIGHT SAY OTHERWISE.

In other words what else could KNOW HOW to program to 'think' like you human beings 'think', besides you human beings of course?

That question implies that human beings know how to program this sort of thing.

NO IT DOES NOT AT ALL.

But, AGAIN, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE to think, PRESUME, or BELIEVE whatever you WANT TO.

[Age]

In other words what else could KNOW HOW to program to 'think' like you human beings 'think', besides you human beings of course?

That question implies that human beings know how to program this sort of thing.

I asked you:
'If a robot can be programmed to 'think' like you human beings 'think', then could a robot, also, be programmed to 'feel', like you human beings 'feel'?you said, and, asked:

To which you replied, and asked:
If you could do the former, then sure, the latter would be part of it. I highly doubt there'd be an incentive to do that however. What would be the point?

In my reply:
To make 'more money'.

Now, to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR,

What I am SAYING, and MEANING, IS the INCENTIVE and POINT of doing 'that', [programming robots/machines to 'think' like human beings 'think], would be to make 'more money'.

'we', however, might have VERY DIFFERENT perspectives of what the 'that' word, in what you doubt, is in relation TO, EXACTLY. Which might have caused and created SOME CONFUSION, here.

But, me ASKING you, 'What else could KNOW HOW to program to 'think' like you human beings 'think', besides you human beings of course?' NEVER EVER implies that you human beings know how to program 'this sort of thing' AT ALL.

Would you 'now' like to CLARIFY what your USE of the 'that' word is in relation TO, EXACTLY, as well as INFORM 'us', here, what you MEANT, EXACTLY, by your USE of the words, 'this sort of thing', EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But, if yes, then GREAT'. I WILL AWAIT.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Is there really such a thing as a "conscious" being? Of what use is consciousness if it is unable to choose or do anything other than what has been determined for it to do or choose. According to conservation laws consciousness can do nothing to affect the world--a world of matter in motion. Is consciousness just along for a ride or is there no such thing as consciousness at all, just "smoke and mirrors" created by a mathematical algorithm running its course?

I'm conscious that I have emerged in matter for a while. For about 17 hours a day. Which is a lie, I might give it a moment's thought every week or so. More since coming here.