‘Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer’ - Sir Roger Penrose

The Hard Problem is just the question of how that which is physical (whatever that means) can generate consciousness. See here.

It doesn't change the importance of structures that anchor consciousness to a first-person-PoV, as can be seen from neuroscience - even if Idealism is true that would be unavoidable & probably why even some Idealists (like Donald Hoffman tho he calls himself a "Conscious Realist") think AI can become conscious.

So the structures that are part of Orch-OR or any other theory - like Integrated Information Theory - can still have a role and can still be reproduced synthetically.

I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with that conclusion, or just stating what others believe.

Nowadays, everything technological is surrounded by a haze of hype, and usually the claimed breakthroughs are not reproduced by anyone else.

I'm not quite sure if you are agreeing with that conclusion, or just stating what others believe.

Nowadays, everything technological is surrounded by a haze of hype, and usually the claimed breakthroughs are not reproduced by anyone else.

I'm simply noting that when navigating this world it seems we usually need brains and bodies, even if we can debate what role these play.

So it doesn't seem farfetched, or in violation of the Hard Problem, to think that humans could create synthetic life at some point in the future. It may because the conditions to draw an individual out of some Ur-Consciounsess are fulfilled, or that a spirit decides to slip into that synthetic life because it allows for the same transmitter/filter function as a human brain + body does. (Consider Replacement Reincarnation, where it seems a new soul has entered a recently deceased body - if there are souls like this looking for an opportunity it seems almost axiomatic that they would use a synthetic body.)

I'm not giving a particular timeline, or pointing to any particular discoveries beyond using Orch OR as an example which for the record I think is wrong in particulars but correct in that some vital aspect of the brain--consciousness connection runs through quantum biology.

To be honest the idea we can rule out humans ever making synthetic life seems quite odd to me, I'm not even sure what supports this conclusion beyond an - AFAICTell - incorrect reading of what Chalmers meant by the Hard Problem of Consciousness -> Just look at his papers on AI & Computation.

So it doesn't seem farfetched, or in violation of the Hard Problem, to think that humans could create synthetic life at some point in the future. It may because the conditions to draw an individual out of some Ur-Consciounsess are fulfilled, or that a spirit decides to slip into that synthetic life because it allows for the same transmitter/filter function as a human brain + body does. (Consider Replacement Reincarnation, where it seems a new soul has entered a recently deceased body - if there are souls like this looking for an opportunity it seems almost axiomatic that they would use a synthetic body.)

There is a notable change of language here. On at least two previous occasions in this thread you mentioned the 'generation' of consciousness from material structures.

I'm not suggesting this means a change in your views, but perhaps it is now clearer what it is that you are trying to say.

There is a notable change of language here. On at least two previous occasions in this thread you mentioned the 'generation' of consciousness from material structures.

I'm not suggesting this means a change in your views, but perhaps it is now clearer what it is that you are trying to say.

Do you mean:

" if Orch Or is correct what generates an individual consciousness from a potential Source is certain structures in organic entities."

I was using language comparable to Hammeroff's, where he suggests a Universal Consciousness is the origination of individualized personal consciousness.

I don't think this is really different than the Idealist conjecture of having some kind of Mind@Large that splits into alters?

Do you mean:

" if Orch Or is correct what generates an individual consciousness from a potential Source is certain structures in organic entities."

I was using language comparable to Hammeroff's, where he suggests a Universal Consciousness is the origination of individualized personal consciousness.

I don't think this is really different than the Idealist conjecture of having some kind of Mind@Large that splits into alters?

Thanks.

Also somewhere you clarified that you were not necessarily supporting Orch Or. I was a little unsure as to which parts were simply talking about the ideas of others and which were talking about your own ideas. But I'm no expert on Orch Or or Mind@Large for that matter so am in no position to say more. I'm happy to leave it there.

Do you mean:

" if Orch Or is correct what generates an individual consciousness from a potential Source is certain structures in organic entities."

I was using language comparable to Hammeroff's, where he suggests a Universal Consciousness is the origination of individualized personal consciousness.

I don't think this is really different than the Idealist conjecture of having some kind of Mind@Large that splits into alters?

I might point out that this definition of Hameroff's Orch OR theory is flatly contradicted by a large amount of empirical evidence starting with veridical NDEs. His "potential Source" appears definitely not to be individualized human first person subjective awareness and consciousness, which the NDE data shows is ultimately an immaterial spiritual center of consciousness which can leave the body to go elsewhere in the physical world, or into a spiritual realm, and then return to reenter the body and brain. While the person is out of body (and making the observations and having the communications and encounters with beings, that have been verified in the many investigated accounts), the individual personal human consciousness is certainly not tied to and being generated by "certain structures in organic entities" (brains, that is). In fact, the brain is often completely dysfunctional, as in cardiac arrest.

I might point out that this definition of Hameroff's Orch OR theory is flatly contradicted by a large amount of empirical evidence starting with veridical NDEs. His "potential Source" appears definitely not to be individualized human first person subjective awareness and consciousness, which the NDE data shows is ultimately an immaterial spiritual center of consciousness which can leave the body to go elsewhere in the physical world, or into a spiritual realm, and then return to reenter the body and brain. While the person is out of body (and making the observations and having the communications and encounters with beings, that have been verified in the many investigated accounts), the individual personal human consciousness is certainly not tied to and being generated by "certain structures in organic entities" (brains, that is). In fact, the brain is often completely dysfunctional, as in cardiac arrest.

Pretty sure some NDEs, mystic experiences, mediumship, and possibly even pre-birth memories mention something like a Source...though other afterlife accounts also give us different afterlife options such as heavens, hells, etc.

Not even sure why NDEs would be an argument against synthetic life?

Thanks.

Also somewhere you clarified that you were not necessarily supporting Orch Or. I was a little unsure as to which parts were simply talking about the ideas of others and which were talking about your own ideas.  But I'm no expert on Orch Or or Mind@Large for that matter so am in no position to say more. I'm happy to leave it there.

My personal position is that I don't think there is any reason to rule out the eventual creation of synthetic life.

I've yet to see any convincing argument against synthetic life in general, though I would agree no Turing Machine is going to become conscious just by running the right program.

My feeling is that at the time he wrote "Shadows of the Mind", Roger Penrose was very close to embracing a non-material explanation for consciousness. He was showing how extremely hard it is to come up with a materialistic explanation.

I remember looking through the index to see if I could find any word relating to the paranormal - there was none. The academic taboo against mentioning that subject was obviously too great for him to risk - even as a joke.

That is the real value of his book, not the Orch Or theory.