Hi, I’ve finally found the time to sit down and think about these questions you’ve presented to me, and I’m going to organize my answers to them in one post. I hope we can talk more about this over time, even though my responses won’t be immediate. Sorry to keep you waiting.
ConsciousAI wrote: ↑May 5th, 2023, 1:04 pm
Can you please provide a specific clue for the idea that in fact humanity is making progress towards sentient AI and that it can be considered inevitable that it will be achieved?
It just stems from my belief that as long as Conscious / Sentient AI is “physically possible”, then we will eventually get there at some point as long as we survive that long. I cannot assume exactly when.
ConsciousAI wrote: ↑May 5th, 2023, 1:04 pm
What you are essentially asking is whether AI will have a nature that seeks dominance. Is that correct?
I am simply wondering if the future sentient A.I would take after either our own nature of seeking dominance or striving for altruism, or both, depending on how “close-to-human” we make the sentient A.I.
ConsciousAI wrote: ↑May 5th, 2023, 1:04 pm
Isn't physical existence by definition subjective of nature? Then, how can (the notion of) subjective existence be a ground for an explanation of its own origin?
I still believe that the fact that things outside of our subjective existences affect our said subjective existences signals to the limits of what our subjective existences can grasp or contain. That is to say, we seem to know where our body begins and where it ends, just from the fact that if we sense anything else specifically with our bodies, we will feel something. If I were to dip my hand in a river, I would feel the water in our physical interactions. But if I were to throw a rock at it, then I wouldn’t feel whatever physical interaction the rock has with the river.
Even though we seem to be trapped within our own subjective existence and can only perceive physical existence as their subjective counterparts (i.e. different wavelengths of light being perceived as their subjective counterparts that are colors), we can infer, from the very fact that we exist, that something (in this case, what I believe to be the physical existence) has to be there for us to feel and exist.
ConsciousAI wrote: ↑May 5th, 2023, 1:04 pm
Can you please provide the basis for your idea that consciousness propagates through individual neurons? And what would be the idea that it involves a circle?
I have private notes that I wrote about how consciousness could possibly propagate solely through neurons, but they are so convoluted at the moment that I’m gonna have to spend a lot of time refining them. Because of that reason, I can’t give you a full explanation of my entire viewpoint, but the gist of it is that due to how neurons have their own separate “protocols” (i.e. “if this much action potential, release this neurotransmitter) from any other non-neuron objects on how to react to another neuron, that sort of acts as the “wall” between the self and non-self.
As for self-awareness, my idea is that our brain can be simplified and broken down into a chain or ring-like structure, where each neuron connected with another simultaneously communicates with one another and thus has the entire chain, or ring, communicate with itself as a single entity during those times where each neuron simultaneously communicates with another. If it is true that neurons can be aware of one another within their subjective planes, then all the neurons in the brain being aware of one another simultaneously would make it so that the whole brain as a single entity would be aware of its own self.
And to continue, as for what I think about our subjective conscious experience or Qualia, When the same logical building block (which in this case are neurons that acts as building blocks for the brain) affects another same logical building block, what governs that interaction is not their logical “protocols” themselves, as the logic itself is a mere component of interaction here. Rather, what governs this interaction is now a sort of meta-logic, the kind of logic that governs interactions of logical systems aka neurons. It would be the sort of “fundamental” dialectic that acts through the neurons themselves within their local boundaries of the brain, which then generates their own logic. This is what, I think, has to do with the nature of our subjective experience.
This subjective force could be what maintains the objective (= Physical) existence of neurons, while also being affected by it the same way (sort of a symbiotic dualistic relationship). A new meta-logical language that governs these logical systems and their logic. It is local to the systems themselves, which in this case are neurons, since each physical object with a specific logical system or protocol has their own local & subjective driving force behind the generations of these specific logic / protocol (Something that can only be experienced and described in first-person.) that has to be inevitably based on their own unique objective existences.
These subjective languages within neurons then form a closed chain / closed system and thus become their own existence as a single combined subjective existence, but ONLY AS the physical neurons form a physical closed chain on their own and become self-aware as a single brain.
The “self” that the physical net becomes aware of would be equal to the aforementioned chain / net of subjective languages exchanged between neurons, aka how the neurons within our brain sees each other simultaneously at once (in a first person perspective) because to become aware of oneself is also to gain its own first-person perspective as they truly become a “self”, and the net of subjective languages would be the first-person identity of the brain while the net of physical neurons is the third-person identity.
This subjectivity is in contrast with the objective logic or so-called protocols that these building blocks of the brain possess (i.e. “if this much action potential, release this neurotransmitter)
ConsciousAI wrote: ↑May 5th, 2023, 1:04 pm
How would you explain that a human can 'control' a neuron? What would do the controlling?
I believe that we just don’t simply “control” neurons. Rather, I believe we ARE the neurons themselves. Or more specifically, the way the neurons collectively see themselves from something like a first-person viewpoint.
ConsciousAI wrote: ↑May 5th, 2023, 1:04 pm
You say that the force that provides specificity of form in the universe doesn't involve the concept of God. What would be the origin of that fundamental force or how can it be explained without the notion of (what can be indicated as philosophical) God?
Well, I would just argue that the said origin is simply existence itself. Existence provides form, as form is a subset of existence, and existence creates itself from nothing; because that’s what existence means.