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

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)

Ah just to be clear I am not making a production argument. You have to have consciousness - whatever it is (souls, Mind@Large, panpsychic virtual particles, etc) - beforehand.

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...

NDE research (and a lot of other areas of empirical evidence) indicate that human consciousness is ultimately independent of the physical brain (though obviously deeply intertwined with it while in normal physical consciousness in the body). Consciousness evidently continues when the brain is nearly totally dysfunctional, and in many NDEs continues to exist as some sort of mobile center of consciousness. Under these conditions consciousness clearly doesn't depend on the structures and data processing of the brain. To clarify this, yes, we don't know what the minimally required structures are, to manifest consciousness in the physical body.

NDE research (and a lot of other areas of empirical evidence) indicate that human consciousness is ultimately independent of the physical brain (though obviously deeply intertwined with it while in normal physical consciousness in the body). Consciousness evidently continues when the brain is nearly totally dysfunctional, and in many NDEs continues to exist as some sort of mobile center of consciousness. Under these conditions consciousness clearly doesn't depend on the structures and data processing of the brain. To clarify this, yes, we don't know what the minimally required structures are, to manifest consciousness in the physical body.

This leaves a lot of room for questions regardless. When a baby arrives, is a new consciousness created that will transcend its physical form? Or does an old soul enter the physical shell and give it life?

And does the structure's relations/information, rather than the physical structure itself, continue in say a brain of some subtler substance? Or is there an endogenous field in a skull that moves on in some fashion after death - so not the whole structure but at least something that made up the interior of the skull?

Of course this goes beyond the brain, there is also the - to take one example - gut/brain relation. This suggests that the entire body has some relation to the conscious entity - [so the body entire would be] what some Idealists might refer to as the image or icon of the personal consciousness.

Arguably given we don't really know what matter is, we also don't really know what a soul is either...

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.

I follow your train of thought. However, the phrase "hyper-complex silicon structures" is presuming too much, in my opinion. The difficulty is that present-day AI is based in silicon computer technology which is entirely, 100% deterministic at its heart. Lots of little silicon switches which take either an 'on' or 'off' state according to a very simple logical rule.

In my opinion, the interface we are looking for would be more of a quantum structure. There is already established research in quantum biology, two examples which come to mind being the operation of the sense of smell, and the process of photosynthesis. Both of those depend on quantum processes which are very different to the simple on/off states of silicon switches.

In that respect, I'd suggest there may be more likelihood of a posited future conscious technology being based upon say plant biology than upon an advancement in present-day electronics.

This leaves a lot of room for questions regardless. When a baby arrives, is a new consciousness created that will transcend its physical form? Or does an old soul enter the physical shell and give it life?

And does the structure's relations/information, rather than the physical structure itself, continue in say a brain of some subtler substance? Or is there an endogenous field in a skull that moves on in some fashion after death - so not the whole structure but at least something that made up the interior of the skull?

Of course this goes beyond the brain, there is also the - to take one example - gut/brain relation. This suggests that the entire body has some relation to the conscious entity - [so the body entire would be] what some Idealists might refer to as the image or icon of the personal consciousness.

Arguably given we don't really know what matter is, we also don't really know what a soul is either...

I know this (bolded) to be absolutely true without any doubt (for me) but of course it's of no use whatsoever to anyone else. It's one of the reasons I became interested in NDE's.

Just to add, (second bolded) I know what I was. And it was basically Just the same as I am now (whatever that is) except (then) I was full of optimism (no negativity). Apologies for off topic.

I follow your train of thought. However, the phrase "hyper-complex silicon structures" is presuming too much, in my opinion. The difficulty is that present-day AI is based in silicon computer technology which is entirely, 100% deterministic at its heart. Lots of little silicon switches which take either an 'on' or 'off' state according to a very simple logical rule.

In my opinion, the interface we are looking for would be more of a quantum structure. There is already established research in quantum biology, two examples which come to mind being the operation of the sense of smell, and the process of photosynthesis. Both of those depend on quantum processes which are very different to the simple on/off states of silicon switches.

In that respect, I'd suggest there may be more likelihood of a posited future conscious technology being based upon say plant biology than upon an advancement in present-day electronics.

Perhaps this is not what you meant, but there still seems a fundamental problem with even the notion that quantum mechanical phenomena might underlie consciousness. QM interactions no matter how weird and counter-intuitive are still between elementary particles and fields, which are the elementary "things", or "stuff" of the physical world. There is still a seemingly unbridgeable gulf between the basic natures of physical stuff of any kind whatsoever and the qualia, abstractions, thoughts, intentionality, etc. experienced "inside" consciousness. This is the stubborn old "Hard Problem". 
 
I don't think there will be a future "conscious technology" if by this it is meant a technology that creates consciousness by means of very sophisticated devices, whether it's silicon chips, or quasi-biological and utilizing QM interactions at the microcellular or subcellular  level. However, maybe such a very advanced technology could create vehicles for preexisting conscious entities from other realms. I would suggest great caution in this, however, since not all spiritual entities from other worlds of existence can be assumed to be altruistic with our benefit in mind.

I know this (bolded) to be absolutely true without any doubt (for me) but of course it's of no use whatsoever to anyone else. It's one of the reasons I became interested in NDE's.

Just to add, (second bolded) I know what I was. And it was basically Just the same as I am now (whatever that is) except (then) I was full of optimism (no negativity). Apologies for off topic.

Tim - do you mean you knew you existed before this life as a soul, or you knew the substance of your soul?

For example I know I exist in a body right now, but [neither] I - nor anyone else - can tell you what a body is exactly made of.

Tim - do you mean you knew you existed before this life as a soul, or you knew the substance of your soul?

For example I know I exist in a body right now, but [neither] I - nor anyone else - can tell you what a body is exactly made of.

I mean that I remember coming here from somewhere else (that was far, far better for want of a better description). For me it's not a question of maybe I'm suffering from false memories about this; I know it without any question. I've been here before. That's all I want to say about it but I do realise that it's of no use to anyone else. My testimony was published in a book about 25 years ago. (Edit) But that's no use to anyone else either, of course, it's just another testimony.

I mean that I remember coming here from somewhere else (that was far, far better for want of a better description). For me it's not a question of maybe I'm suffering from false memories about this; I know it without any question. I've been here before. That's all I want to say about it but I do realise that it's of no use to anyone else. My testimony was published in a book about 25 years ago. (Edit) But that's no use to anyone else either, of course, it's just another testimony.

Oh I think that sort of thing is quite useful - one of my favorite conversation starters with new people is whether they've had a paranormal experience. Once they realize I am not going to subject them to pseudo-skeptical mockery almost everyone has had at least one "weird" event in their lives.

I accept some of these people might be having a go, making something up, but I find most of these "testimonies" to be genuine for my personal satisfaction. As  you say it's not the kind of thing that will make it into a scientific journal yet for myself it's good to have reminders that there's still magic in the world...