Quora user claims to have 'solved consciousness' via AGI theory?

I was reading up on the most recent post on the AwareofAWARE blog (which I highly recommend to those not familiar with it and are interested in the work of Sam Parnia) when I came across a comment from one user that had me troubled.

He says how there's a 'consciousness researcher' on Quora who claims to have solved consciousness with an 'AGI Theory' that excludes the possibility of an afterlife and consciousness in AI:

https://www.quora.com/profile/B-A-Rehl
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-so-obvious-t...fter-death

I skimmed through his profile and post history myself and, like the commenter, I am very skeptical of his claims and arguments. He seems awfully dismissive at times of contrary views and I didn't gleam much evidence that supposedly supports his theory at first glance, but I didn't want to stress over it, so apologies if I'm mistaken. His comments date back as far as 2017 it seems. He's apparently going to publish the results of some study at the start next year (if he isn't a fraud that is). I'm still a bit distressed about this despite my skepticism. I was wondering what you guys make of his research, assertions and arguments? Are they convincing?

Disclaimer:
As noted here there's a good reason to reject this is proof materialism/physicalism is true, given these skeptical parties that continue to doubt the physicalist/materialist faith.


Additionally, whatever is shown by parapsychology or neuroscience, here are four good reasons to reject the religion of physicalism/materialism.

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I only had a quick skim through some of the postings at the links you provided. My impression is that he is living within a fantasy world of his own. I'm not sure anyone else will be joining him there any time soon. Many of his assertions have a mix of naivety and hubris embedded right through them.

By the way, welcome to the forum!

[Laird]

First up: welcome to the forum!

I did a bit of reading at those links. Here's the basic framing of my response:

It seems possible that achievable AGI is compatible with post-mortem survival of the consciousnesses/souls of us biological creatures. I didn't see where he concludes that the two are incompatible (assuming that that's a correct interpretation of what he's saying based on your opening post), so I don't know what his reasoning for it is, and can't respond to it.

On top of that, there is all sorts of positive evidence - as you seem to be well aware - that the consciousnesses/souls of biological creatures do or at least can survive bodily death - i.e., that they can exist independently of our biological forms including our brains.

So, those are two barriers that in my view this person would need to overcome. Have you seen anywhere where he has fleshed out his argument for the first in detail, and/or what his response to the second is?

That said, I do find him an interesting character - he affirms the existence of free will (thumbs up), rejects the idea that a Turing machine could become conscious (another thumbs up), and seems pretty confident that he has understood consciousness in biological creatures well enough to replicate it in a non-biological entity, which is certainly an exciting possibility. As to whether or not his confidence is justified, I guess we will just have to wait and see...

Thanks for those warm welcomes, I really appreciate it! 

Unfortunately I didn't see much on why he considers them to be incompatible, I'm going off his original comment in 2017, the only one the poster seemed to link. He did seem to comment on non-local consciousness in a neutral(?) manner but he rejects the idea of a cosmic consciousness. Perhaps he changed his mind over the years?

I also don't understand how 'knowledge theory' debunks the existence of an afterlife either, especially given the substantial evidence in favour of it and against materialism.

If I understand Rehl he's saying we can create structures that would be conscious entities.

On that part I am pretty much in agreement, though exactly why those structures produce conscious entities is something we would seem to differ greatly on...

[Laird]

Fill in those dots, Sci... you've got me curious now.

Fill in those dots, Sci... you've got me curious now.

Nothing I haven't said before I think?

If we figured out the minimal structures that correlate with consciousness in our minds, and then created a synthetic reproduction of that structure, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that produced entity was conscious?

Radin has suggested something similar, that a robot/android may have greater awareness and Psi ability than humans. I'll try to dig up the interview he mentioned this in, IIRC his theory was that the android - lacking the evolutionary structures that close our minds from a Source Consciousness - would then display abilities akin to the siddhis that legends say came along the spiritual paths of the ancient Vedic peoples.

[Laird]

Nothing I haven't said before I think?

Probably. Although the difference bit maybe you haven't said before.

If we figured out the minimal structures that correlate with consciousness in our minds, and then created a synthetic reproduction of that structure, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that produced entity was conscious?

Before answering myself (if it's even a non-rhetorical question), I'd be curious to know how you think this perspective differs from what you understand Rehl's to be. That's the bit that had me most curious...

Radin has suggested something similar, that a robot/android may have greater awareness and Psi ability than humans. I'll try to dig up the interview he mentioned this in, IIRC his theory was that the android - lacking the evolutionary structures that close our minds from a Source Consciousness - would then display abilities akin to the siddhis that legends say came along the spiritual paths of the ancient Vedic peoples.

...although perhaps if I understand this final paragraph correctly in context, you're suggesting that the synthetic reproduction would be conscious (solely?) due to its channeling Source Consciousness, which - presumably - is a notion that you think that Rehl would reject?

Probably. Although the difference bit maybe you haven't said before.

Before answering myself (if it's even a non-rhetorical question), I'd be curious to know how you think this perspective differs from what you understand Rehl's to be. That's the bit that had me most curious...

...although perhaps if I understand this final paragraph correctly in context, you're suggesting that the synthetic reproduction would be conscious (solely?) due to its channeling Source Consciousness, which - presumably - is a notion that you think that Rehl would reject?

Well I am not sure about the Source Consciousness, IIRC that was something Radin was talking about though not necessarily using those exact words.

But I do think Consciousness is part of the Ground of the Real, rather than something emergent in the nonsensical Something from Nothing way the Materialist religion believes. It seems to me that Rehl is of that particular faith, which would be our point of disagreement.