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

[Laird]

OK, cool, thanks for bearing with me and clarifying, Sci.

OK, cool, thanks for bearing with me and clarifying, Sci.

No worries, I find a lot of people look askance when I say no Turing Machine will achieve consciousness but someday it seems reasonable to think an android will...

"Do you think he had a soul Alfred? A soul of silicon, but a soul nonetheless..."
  -Batman: The Animated Series

[Laird]

That's it in the quote. Soul is the key to it (where I'm interpreting "soul" as "essential self"). Those who look askance at you are probably wondering how a soul - that is, the subject of the subjective self - can just pop into being when the right elements are in place, and, presumably, just disappear or "die" (in the fullest sense) when they are not.

I find some interesting thoughts in this regard in the YouTube lecture by Marjorie Woollacott to which Typoz (I think?) linked in another thread, especially around the 25m05s mark (the image in particular) and the 58m18s mark.

Basically, she seems to be suggesting two levels of consciousness: the "local (brain)" level, and the "non-local" level.

It seems possible that the "local" level of consciousness (on this view) could be synthesised by an AGI/android, but it does still seem odd that a soul (self) could - even at this level - be brought into being and then annihilated so readily, not to mention the difficulties of reconciling the apparent dual-soul/dual-self reality that this implies.

I think I find it easier to imagine that - and I think you posted about / alluded to this in another thread within the past 24 hours, IIRC, Sci - an appropriately-configured AGI/android would "draw" a preexisting ("non-local") soul/self to it which would then "attach to" and interact with that AGI/android's "local brain consciousness".

So, that's where I think the differences between a materialist's (presumably Rehl's) view and yours or mine would be most manifest: ours would entail some sort of interface with "a non-local self", whereas on a materialist view, there would be only a "local" self, with no need for nor existence of a non-local interface, and that "local" self would appear out of nowhere when the conditions were right, and, just as mysteriously, disappear back to nowhere when the conditions failed to support it.

But I'm kind of just talking off the top of my head here, and there may be possibilities that I haven't adequately addressed here; moreover, I may be putting words into your mouth!

[Laird]

I think I find it easier to imagine that - and I think you posted about / alluded to this in another thread within the past 24 hours, IIRC, Sci - an appropriately-configured AGI/android would "draw" a preexisting ("non-local") soul/self to it which would then "attach to" and interact with that AGI/android's "local brain consciousness".

Ah. I found the post in question, in which you wrote in reference to: 

Grossinger's argument in Dark Pool of Light that brains have a pattern that attracts spirits to incarnate

I might, though, have misunderstood that quote (I am not familiar with Grossinger nor his/her argument in Dark Pool of Light).

That's it in the quote. Soul is the key to it (where I'm interpreting "soul" as "essential self"). Those who look askance at you are probably wondering how a soul - that is, the subject of the subjective self - can just pop into being when the right elements are in place, and, presumably, just disappear or "die" (in the fullest sense) when they are not.

I find some interesting thoughts in this regard in the YouTube lecture by Marjorie Woollacott to which Typoz (I think?) linked in another thread, especially around the 25m05s mark (the image in particular) and the 58m18s mark.

Basically, she seems to be suggesting two levels of consciousness: the "local (brain)" level, and the "non-local" level.

It seems possible that the "local" level of consciousness (on this view) could be synthesised by an AGI/android, but it does still seem odd that a soul (self) could - even at this level - be brought into being and then annihilated so readily, not to mention the difficulties of reconciling the apparent dual-soul/dual-self reality that this implies.

I think I find it easier to imagine that - and I think you posted about / alluded to this in another thread within the past 24 hours, IIRC, Sci - an appropriately-configured AGI/android would "draw" a preexisting ("non-local") soul/self to it which would then "attach to" and interact with that AGI/android's "local brain consciousness".

So, that's where I think the differences between a materialist's (presumably Rehl's) view and yours or mine would be most manifest: ours would entail some sort of interface with "a non-local self", whereas on a materialist view, there would be only a "local" self, with no need for nor existence of a non-local interface, and that "local" self would appear out of nowhere when the conditions were right, and, just as mysteriously, disappear back to nowhere when the conditions failed to support it.

But I'm kind of just talking off the top of my head here, and there may be possibilities that I haven't adequately addressed here; moreover, I may be putting words into your mouth!

Why would the local consciousness have to cease when the android brain is destroyed? Maybe there are robots in Heaven?

[Laird]

Why would the local consciousness have to cease when the android brain is destroyed? Maybe there are robots in Heaven?

Great question. I suppose the possibility is open that (pseudo-)biological elements bring consciousness into existence, which is then capable of continued independent existence. I think it's what Neil (remember him on Skeptiko?) used to argue for. I just find it difficult to imagine. In trying to flesh out the reasons why, though, I found myself instead simply developing a case for the independent existence of the self - regardless of whether that self is (merely) local or whether it is an "attached" non-local self - and so it seems the reasons why I find it difficult to imagine are right now kind of opaque to me.

A rather odd premise it is... That the prophets of future religions could be machines that may outlive humans.

I don't think AI robot consciousness is even remotely possible. The notion of AI consciousness seems to be rooted in the well entrenched materialist assumption that human consciousness is simply what the brain in its 80 billion neurons and countless more interconnected synaptic junctions does.

To begin with, consider areas which are the tip of an iceberg as far as research is concerned. The relationship between the mind and the brain is not turning out as materialists have expected. The mind does not appear to be simply what the brain does. For instance there is the rather loose association between the mind and the brain, as found via research into people with damaged or largely absent brains. And there are the ways the mind appears to act on the brain and the body, in the well-attested placebo effect, and in meditation practices. On the presence in consciousness of true non-deterministic non-mechanical free will, consider Benjamin Libet’s work on “free won’t”. And the clincher is that there is a large body of evidence from veridical NDEs that human consciousness can detach from the brain and body to become a mobile center of consciousness. Materialism, naturalism, physicalism seem to be running in circles around the problem of consciousness, billing their increasing speed of rotation as progress.

The Turing test or even the Lovelace test for consciousness may well be passed one day, but I think this will be merely the result of very clever programming to mimic human beings. One acid test would be the ability of the AI to exhibit true creativity - as one example, say to write new, unique literature for instance novels, or sonnets.

The message from findings so far: in contrary to materialism the human mind is neither an illusion nor a material entity. It can be studied, but on its own terms. It can’t be shoehorned into some other problem and studied less controversially from there. It looks like the surprising rising popularity among some scientists of panpsychism as a discussable idea attests to this growing realization. Of course there is still the fossilized "consensus" of reductive naturalism that looks like it will hang around for a very long time.

Of course all this doesn't consider the intriguing notion that some sort of advanced AI system might one day be suitable for and be occupied by a nonmaterial "spiritual" entity of perhaps the order of a human soul. The AI system would then exhibit true consciousness courtesy of the spiritual entity that manifests in the physical world through it. In this speculated eventuality consciousness would still not be a function of a brain (in this case made of hyper-complex silicon structures). This AGI consciousness would still in reality be the unique property of the occupying spiritual entity.

Of course all this doesn't consider the intriguing notion that some sort of advanced AI system might one day be suitable for and be occupied by a nonmaterial "spiritual" entity of perhaps the order of a human soul. The AI system would then exhibit true consciousness courtesy of the spiritual entity that manifests in the physical world through it. In this speculated eventuality consciousness would still not be a function of a brain (in this case made of hyper-complex silicon structures). This AGI consciousness would still in reality be the unique property of the occupying spiritual entity.

This is what I was suggesting as a possibility. I think we simply don't know the connection between the structural relations of the brain's substance and consciousness, heck we don't even know what the minimally required structures are. I suspect things go deep, all the way down to the quantum - what this means is still up for grabs...

A rather odd premise it is... That the prophets of future religions could be machines that may outlive humans.

I find myself pondering about this often, given the way synthetic life seems more adapted for space...are biologicals just cocoons for the androids who will take their place in whatever intergalactic civilization might be out there?

Of course, if you believe in reincarnation, and that Grossinger is correct certain structures like the brain draw spirits to incarnate into this world, *we* might be there too...

"....The curb of art no farther lets me go.

From the most holy water I returned
Regenerate, in the manner of new trees
That are renewed with a new foliage, 

Pure and disposed to mount unto the stars."
 -Purgatorio XXXIII

I'm bewildered by the popular belief that ever more complex electrical connections will eventually/somehow produce consciousness. Just one more connection and ala Kazoom !...It's alive, it's got self awareness and feelings  !" It will never happen because we can't make it happen.  Complexity is just complexity, it's got nothing to do with consciousness. We don't even know what consciousness is, never mind the formula to create it. It's crazy to even think like that IMHO. (Not having a go at Sci BTW)