By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
From what I gather science has historically rejected anything non-physically measured or observed, thus leaving consciousness in the philosophical realm of study and anyone who dares frame the question of self-awareness as a scientific one is accused of pseudo behaviour.
Not a million miles off as no one can conclude anything on the topic - We don't even know what to measure, let alone have the tools to measure, to understand what the self is or what it's purpose is in the wider scheme of the universe. But we all have it in our flesh prisons and agree that much.
If we want to create sentience, properly, we first need to figure out how we ask the question of "what is consciousness?". And to do that we need to move from contemplating it through the limits of our own minds and start asking how it fits into the universe.
Although AI has endless value in it's current form, making sentient life in a robot would be entirely fluke if we got that lucky.
Well, many people do call the book 'Consciousness Explained Away', but there is plenty of good science in there.
Regardless of if you believe we are actual beings of sentience or a chemical illusion of if (I steer to the latter, humans put far too much weight on their own existence as it’s the only thing they’ll ever know) the main challenge is to create what it is to be sentient, we’d have to have a 100% testable and provable physical explanation for how it works for us in the first place.
I’ve spent most my life wondering why I am me right now and not someone else at another time. You can apply that to every conscious thing that’s ever lived and ever will. That question could have a fascinating or depressing answer depending on what the answer is.
Regardless of if you believe we are actual beings of sentience or a chemical illusion of if (I steer to the latter, humans put far too much weight on their own existence as it’s the only thing they’ll ever know) the main challenge is to create what it is to be sentient, we’d have to have a 100% testable and provable physical explanation for how it works for us in the first place.
I’ve spent most my life wondering why I am me right now and not someone else at another time. You can apply that to every conscious thing that’s ever lived and ever will. That question could have a fascinating or depressing answer depending on what the answer is.
The problem with testing an hypothesis sometimes is that new evidence emerges that renders your test invalid, but at least you have set out some direction for the way a phenomenon can be tested. So, whilst consciousness is mighty difficult to pin down, by identifying the phenomenon and asking questions about it we commence to frame how tests can be constructed.
The problem with testing an hypothesis sometimes is that new evidence emerges that renders your test invalid, but at least you have set out some direction for the way a phenomenon can be tested. So, whilst consciousness is mighty difficult to pin down, by identifying the phenomenon and asking questions about it we commence to frame how tests can be constructed.
All I know is the older I get and the more I get lost in thought the more comfortable I get with the idea of trying DMT!
Regardless of if you believe we are actual beings of sentience or a chemical illusion of if (I steer to the latter, humans put far too much weight on their own existence as it’s the only thing they’ll ever know) the main challenge is to create what it is to be sentient, we’d have to have a 100% testable and provable physical explanation for how it works for us in the first place.
I’ve spent most my life wondering why I am me right now and not someone else at another time. You can apply that to every conscious thing that’s ever lived and ever will. That question could have a fascinating or depressing answer depending on what the answer is.
The thing is, even if you were that someone else, you wouldn't be the you you are right now so wouldn't be wondering about it!
You are the obsolete SRN4 to my Fairey Rotodyne....
The thing is, even if you were that someone else, you wouldn't be the you you are right now so wouldn't be wondering about it!
True. But I am having a subjective experience as me and will do for all my life. You will have that subjective experience as you. Same for all. Our subjective experiences will overlap and we will agree we are all having a subjective experience, we can even agree it largely feels and works the same for all of us using language we've developed to assign meaning.
But none of that is scientific. Limited by the human experience of consciousness and existence we have assumed we are the centre of all that is in the universe (now regarded as wrong via Galileo) and that we are superior engineered beings separate from the world we inhabit (now regarded as wrong via Darwin). Society has shifted massively due to the improved understanding of ourselves (regardless of how much control religion still has of some narratives). Discovery of forces and elements has changed the way society functions exponentially - from the industrial age to the digital age.
Now, let's say entirely hypothetically, someone comes along and proves scientifically consciousness is in itself part of the dark matter/energy that fuels the universe. This would completely change our purpose in the universe as humans, and would lead us to further discoveries as we'd have more idea what is going on that creates a chemical illusion of self.
It could answer questions like what happens to our sense of self when we leave the physical realm, and if it stays in tact. We may be able to communicate with it or rebuild simulations of it and ask witnesses to the biggest mysteries of humanity what actually happened. We could have forensics to solve crimes even more accurate than the amazing means we have now.
All of that to me is therefore the kind of stuff we should be exploring through science and not just the human limitations of experience. The problem is as mentioned earlier that experience limitation has us stumped as to where to look for the question, let alone the answer.
I am confident humanity will crack it if it doesn't blow itself up out of collective stupidity eventually, we may even see the initial thoughts and findings in this lifetime.
To limit sentience to just "empathy" is a discredit to both sentience and AI though.
In defence of sentience:
There's no real description or reason of what makes us self-aware beyond the human experience which is a subjective one.
To my knowledge we can only account for 6% of that the universe actually is, and we perceive/see/feel a tiny fraction of that though what our body/brain allows. The brain is an incredibly complex functioning organ too, and we are very early on in our scientific understanding of it.
Thus, until we can scientifically measure or identify what sentience is based on a factual metric, we can never actually be sure if what we've created is sentient. Building a literal human simulator is not a bridge we're close to building with what we know at present.
In defence of AI:
We've already invented AI that can fly planes and drive cars better than humans. It was only 25 years ago we built a computer that beat the world's greatest chess player.
We also know through processing mass data what choices we can make personally to be more empathetic in our ripples around society - diet, transport, consumption, etc.
I would argue AI could already be better at making empathetic choices than humans if we asked a machine with the right data entered what humanity needs to do to avoid the climate crisis or for all to live a more fulfilled life.
Problem is the AI is going to tell us to overthrow the current power structures and do away with money/land hoarding. The powers that be therefore won't allow it!
On the flip, I do believe AI could go AWOL and cause huge issues too, but again that is all possible with the current framework of data processing and wouldn't mean sentience.
Imagine if machine learning led to this for example...
[Post edited 13 Jun 2022 12:09]
I’ve just realised that we do have a definitive answer on all this:-
This is basic Black Mirror stuff and there has been a few examples of people making similar things.
Musk, Zucks, Thiel and Bezos only hang around these circles investing/buying the tech as they are so content in this life and the power they built they don’t want to let it go through death. Thiel has been particularly open on the subject. Death is the great equaliser and their egos are so fragile, their development so hampered by money, they cannot accept such reality.
Find me a Billionaire doing something without a self-interested motive controlling the steering wheel and I’ll be impressed/surprised.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
