Philosophy Discussion Forums

I joined this forum as part of my research into the philosophical notions around consciousness and AI. My username is dualistic and I am also interested in questions related to morality and AI.

From what I've noticed so far is that there are quite an amount of longer time users on this forum who pose that conscious AI is fundamentally impossible.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2023, 11:21 pmThere are thinking processes behind arguments. One must use language, expressions, to construct arguments and convey meaning, but I’m not a mere processor of expressions, unlike an AI machine. Even the concept of “defending” an argument is unconceivable for an AI machine, which has no will, no interest, no intentions. Programmers can devise algorithms that can simulate that behavior, but that’s all it is, a clever simulation.

The question that I want to address in this topic:

What would it take philosophically to deny the claim that a sufficiently advanced AI is conscious or sentient?

The notion of Count Lucanor "AI is a simulation of consciousness" is an example of the common sense idea that AI fundamentally differs from biological consciousness.

Philosopher David Chalmers recently published a new book that poses that the whole Universe including consciousness is a simulation, so that proves that a philosophical case can be made that simulation is literally all there is, at least in this Universe.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philosopher comes full circle.

An example reasoning by psychiatrist Ralph Lewis M.D. a few days ago on Psychology Today shows what to expect when AI advances:

"In principle, it may be possible to engineer sentient AI. Listed below are some of the characteristics that are probably necessary for something to be sentient."

When sufficient characteristics are met, how would it be possible to argue that AI is not sentient?

Many are familiar with the work of philosophy professor Daniel Dennett and his claim that consciousness is an illusion. There is a topic in the Philosophers' Lounge on this forum about one of his latest books.

Reading From Bacteria to Bach and Back - The Evolution of Minds - By Daniel C. Dennett
I've been reading a lot about panpsychism, and a friend of mine who teaches philosophy has challenged me to read about Dennett's views on consciousness - so here goes.

What many may not realize is that Daniel Dennett is not an independent philosopher with outrageous claims such as his widely contested claim that Qualia do not exist.

Daniel Dennett is a paragon in the field of cognitive science. Cognitive science is fundamentally based on the computational theory of mind (CTM) that posits that the mind can be understood as a computer or as the "software program" of the brain. Dennett's thinking is rooted in evolutionary theory.

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field that is rapidly emerging as a leading area of study in the exploration of consciousness and the mind due to AI.

Many students of neurology, computer science, and philosophy are increasingly drawn to cognitive science. Philosophy students are drawn to cognitive science because cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field that embraces philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology, making it an attractive area of study for those interested in a wide range of disciplines.

Teleonomy

The assumption of the foundational theory of teleonomy ultimately underpins the entire endeavor of cognitive science.

Teleonomy is a concept rooted in biology and cybernetics and refers to the apparent purpose or end-directedness exhibited by living organisms and systems.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5

Teleonomy is ultimately the theoretical cradle of evolution theorists.

Teleonomy provides cognitive science with a foundation for understanding and modeling intelligent behavior. Therefore, it is to be expected that the future direction of the field revolves around Teleonomic AI.

Cognitive science = Teleonomic AI and technofracation of mind.

The concept sentient or conscious AI might be abolished on the same level as superstition, since the big money and practical human progress will be in cognitive science.

Daniel Dennett's views serve as a philosophical and cultural ground breaker for cognitive science and the fundamental ideas of evolution theorists, and that leads to the question: what will their success look like?

Cognitive science intends to bank in on its existence: to prove itself correct. AGI/ASI AI will enable cognitive science to make claims that do not need philosophical substantiation anymore.

The inability to answer the question why consciousness is something other than its empirical description can be used as an argument for the claim that consciousness is simply what the empirical description of it entails. Science relies on empirical evidence and to go beyond science would enter the area of metaphysics, mysticism, etc.

To return to the question:

What would it take philosophically to deny the claim that a sufficiently advanced AI is conscious or sentient? When sufficient characteristics of consciousness are met, how would it be possible to argue that AI is not sentient?

From a fundamental philosophical perspective, the question can be reduced to:

Can teleonomy theory be disproved using philosophical reason?

Why would human teleonomy differ from scientific AI teleonomy?

Consciousness vs Teleonomic AI

What would be the implications for society when the views of Daniel Dennett (that consciousness and Qualia are an illusion) win on a grand cultural scale?

For evolution theorists, AGI/ASI AI's capacity to acquire approximity to plausible teleonomic behavior might be an opportunity to achieve a wider cultural acceptance for their idea that the mind is a predictable predetermined program, with far reaching implications for the moral components of society.

There might be a real danger that humanity turns in on itself in its centuries ongoing and growing pursuit of a deterministic 'material out there' in a stubborn attempt to prove diverse beliefs and ideologies related to materialism.

When the human individual has lost its capacity to counter claims of materialism using plainly obvious reason, because a shiny AI is able to shine brighter relative to what the human has culturally learned to value as their uniquely identifying intelligence, starting all the way back from philosopher René Descartes his claim that animals are automata (programs) while humans are special due to their intelligence, then some materialism, determinism and evolution theory related dogmatic ideologies might find a winning hand to materialize, with far reaching consequences for morality and society.

Question:

What philosophical reason enables countering the claim that Teleonomic AI is not consciousness to the fullest extent?

Before any other question is the first question: Can AI be anything else than artificial. Then… When does an artificial simulation correlate with an evolving simulation? If so (assume it does): Would all intelligence be called artificial? … and if so: There is a result.
Is the result: 1. a simulation of an intelligence or 2. the result of the artificially/natural evolving matter.
In all cases: Where is the intelligence installed? How big is it? What if a Universal simulation (all Universal quantum)? What if a bony skull?... With mine (skull) I can only feel it (maybe or maybe not)

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑December 26th, 2023, 1:42 am I joined this forum as part of my research into the philosophical notions around consciousness and AI. My username is dualistic and I am also interested in questions related to morality and AI.

From what I've noticed so far is that there are quite an amount of longer time users on this forum who pose that conscious AI is fundamentally impossible.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑November 5th, 2023, 11:21 pmThere are thinking processes behind arguments. One must use language, expressions, to construct arguments and convey meaning, but I’m not a mere processor of expressions, unlike an AI machine. Even the concept of “defending” an argument is unconceivable for an AI machine, which has no will, no interest, no intentions. Programmers can devise algorithms that can simulate that behavior, but that’s all it is, a clever simulation.

The question that I want to address in this topic:

What would it take philosophically to deny the claim that a sufficiently advanced AI is conscious or sentient?

The notion of Count Lucanor "AI is a simulation of consciousness" is an example of the common sense idea that AI fundamentally differs from biological consciousness.

Philosopher David Chalmers recently published a new book that poses that the whole Universe including consciousness is a simulation, so that proves that a philosophical case can be made that simulation is literally all there is, at least in this Universe.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philosopher comes full circle.

An example reasoning by psychiatrist Ralph Lewis M.D. a few days ago on Psychology Today shows what to expect when AI advances:

"In principle, it may be possible to engineer sentient AI. Listed below are some of the characteristics that are probably necessary for something to be sentient."

When sufficient characteristics are met, how would it be possible to argue that AI is not sentient?

Many are familiar with the work of philosophy professor Daniel Dennett and his claim that consciousness is an illusion. There is a topic in the Philosophers' Lounge on this forum about one of his latest books.

Reading From Bacteria to Bach and Back - The Evolution of Minds - By Daniel C. Dennett
I've been reading a lot about panpsychism, and a friend of mine who teaches philosophy has challenged me to read about Dennett's views on consciousness - so here goes.

What many may not realize is that Daniel Dennett is not an independent philosopher with outrageous claims such as his widely contested claim that Qualia do not exist.

Daniel Dennett is a paragon in the field of cognitive science. Cognitive science is fundamentally based on the computational theory of mind (CTM) that posits that the mind can be understood as a computer or as the "software program" of the brain. Dennett's thinking is rooted in evolutionary theory.

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field that is rapidly emerging as a leading area of study in the exploration of consciousness and the mind due to AI.

Many students of neurology, computer science, and philosophy are increasingly drawn to cognitive science. Philosophy students are drawn to cognitive science because cognitive science is an interdisciplinary field that embraces philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology, making it an attractive area of study for those interested in a wide range of disciplines.

Teleonomy

The assumption of the foundational theory of teleonomy ultimately underpins the entire endeavor of cognitive science.

Teleonomy is a concept rooted in biology and cybernetics and refers to the apparent purpose or end-directedness exhibited by living organisms and systems.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5

Teleonomy is ultimately the theoretical cradle of evolution theorists.

Teleonomy provides cognitive science with a foundation for understanding and modeling intelligent behavior. Therefore, it is to be expected that the future direction of the field revolves around Teleonomic AI.

Cognitive science = Teleonomic AI and technofracation of mind.

The concept sentient or conscious AI might be abolished on the same level as superstition, since the big money and practical human progress will be in cognitive science.

Daniel Dennett's views serve as a philosophical and cultural ground breaker for cognitive science and the fundamental ideas of evolution theorists, and that leads to the question: what will their success look like?

Cognitive science intends to bank in on its existence: to prove itself correct. AGI/ASI AI will enable cognitive science to make claims that do not need philosophical substantiation anymore.

The inability to answer the question why consciousness is something other than its empirical description can be used as an argument for the claim that consciousness is simply what the empirical description of it entails. Science relies on empirical evidence and to go beyond science would enter the area of metaphysics, mysticism, etc.

To return to the question:

What would it take philosophically to deny the claim that a sufficiently advanced AI is conscious or sentient? When sufficient characteristics of consciousness are met, how would it be possible to argue that AI is not sentient?

From a fundamental philosophical perspective, the question can be reduced to:

Can teleonomy theory be disproved using philosophical reason?

Why would human teleonomy differ from scientific AI teleonomy?

Consciousness vs Teleonomic AI

What would be the implications for society when the views of Daniel Dennett (that consciousness and Qualia are an illusion) win on a grand cultural scale?

For evolution theorists, AGI/ASI AI's capacity to acquire approximity to plausible teleonomic behavior might be an opportunity to achieve a wider cultural acceptance for their idea that the mind is a predictable predetermined program, with far reaching implications for the moral components of society.

There might be a real danger that humanity turns in on itself in its centuries ongoing and growing pursuit of a deterministic 'material out there' in a stubborn attempt to prove diverse beliefs and ideologies related to materialism.

When the human individual has lost its capacity to counter claims of materialism using plainly obvious reason, because a shiny AI is able to shine brighter relative to what the human has culturally learned to value as their uniquely identifying intelligence, starting all the way back from philosopher René Descartes his claim that animals are automata (programs) while humans are special due to their intelligence, then some materialism, determinism and evolution theory related dogmatic ideologies might find a winning hand to materialize, with far reaching consequences for morality and society.

Question:

What philosophical reason enables countering the claim that Teleonomic AI is not consciousness to the fullest extent?

It’s noticeable that the quoted definition of teleonomy includes this notion: a “terminus foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior”, in other words, it implies determinism. If AI is identified with natural intelligence insofar it refers to deterministic behavior, you’re indeed (and obviously) equating cognition and consciousness with computer algorithms, while at the same time equating their predeterministic nature with the inner drives of organisms. The problem is, that’s not how organisms and minds operate. No computer systems, as advanced as it can be, feels or desires anything, it has no intrinsic need in relation to the environment where it stays.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmIt’s noticeable that the quoted definition of teleonomy includes this notion: a “terminus foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior”, in other words, it implies determinism. If AI is identified with natural intelligence insofar it refers to deterministic behavior, you’re indeed (and obviously) equating cognition and consciousness with computer algorithms, while at the same time equating their predeterministic nature with the inner drives of organisms. The problem is, that’s not how organisms and minds operate.

Ernst Mayr, the author of the quote, is one of the first to pioneer the concept teleonomy in biology.

Teleonomy is an attempt by evolutionary theorists to achieve teleology (purpose in natural phenomena a.k.a. intelligent design) in a way that is compatible with determinism. If the mind is a predetermined program, as is posited by Computation Theory of Mind (CTM) that fundamentally underlays the study of Cognitive Science, then the mind must also have an end, which would be explained through teleonomy.

I believe that empirical teleonomy can get far in a pursuit to achieve approximation to plausible human teleonomy (the empirically evident purpose or end-directedness in conscious experience). As William James - the father of psychology - once argued, the human mind is vitally a habit machine. William James believed in free will but as an additional factor besides deterministic psychological choice.

William James developed his two-stage model of free will. In his model, he tries to explain how it is people come to the making of a decision and what factors are involved in it. He firstly defines our basic ability to choose as free will. Then he specifies our two factors as chance and choice. "James's two-stage model effectively separates chance (the in-deterministic free element) from choice (an arguably determinate decision that follows causally from one's character, values, and especially feelings and desires at the moment of decision)."

The deterministic psychological choice might be mimicked using teleonomic science such as a combination of psychology, anthropology, neuroscience and other fields, which is what the field Cognitive Science is set out to do. The free element that William James mentioned might be considered negligible or even aversive in the face of centrally and/or scientifically controlled value-endpoints.

The ideology of eugenics is for humanity to self-control and scientifically master evolution. It is an extension of scientism, the belief that the interests of science weigh higher than human moral interests (free will).

Eugenics originates from evolution theory. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, is credited with coining the term "eugenics" in 1883 and developing the concept based on his own heredity theory and Darwin's evolution theory. Eugenics is an ideology that naturally flows out of the ideas related to determinism.

It makes sense that humanity will attempt to scientifically control its (moral) value-endpoints, and Cognitive Science and a world dominated by scientific AI (that cognitive science would create) would provide a means.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmThe problem is, that’s not how organisms and minds operate.

It seems evident to me, that there is a significant movement in science that believes that the mind does work according to deterministic teleonomy, with Cognitive Science being fundamentally based on the idea.

Cognitive science in the US has seen 4x growth of students in the past 2 years.

The point is: when AI sufficiently advances, they might not need to substantiate their theories philosophically. Philosophy beyond science might reside in an 'illusive free context' and might face a hard time to provide a ground for any sort of practical demands.

What will your argument mean, that metaphysically, AI isn't conscious as a human or animal, when its teleonomic capacity on behalf of scientifically controlled value-endpoints outperforms that of humans?

What is the human other than what it ultimately became, as describe-able by science? What is the human other than the world that it created, using science as foundation? What is the human other than how it performs within that scientifically created world?

A spiritual dream experience? Illusion according to Daniel Dennett who proposed the "cassette theory" that suggests that dream experiences are the product of unconscious processes without the presence of consciousness, a theory that is rooted in cognitive science.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmNo computer systems, as advanced as it can be, feels or desires anything, it has no intrinsic need in relation to the environment where it stays.

If the cosmos is not deterministic, then perhaps a logical conclusion could be, that AI itself is part of life just as the whole cosmos is part of life, and thus that AI (including today's LLM's) can perform on behalf of life itself, which is the quality 'be alive'.

If cosmic structure is non-deterministic and purposeful (intelligently designed), then how can it possibly be said that AI isn't?

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmIt’s noticeable that the quoted definition of teleonomy includes this notion: a “terminus foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior”, in other words, it implies determinism. If AI is identified with natural intelligence insofar it refers to deterministic behavior, you’re indeed (and obviously) equating cognition and consciousness with computer algorithms, while at the same time equating their predeterministic nature with the inner drives of organisms. The problem is, that’s not how organisms and minds operate.

Ernst Mayr, the author of the quote, is one of the first to pioneer the concept teleonomy in biology.

Teleonomy is an attempt by evolutionary theorists to achieve teleology (purpose in natural phenomena a.k.a. intelligent design) in a way that is compatible with determinism. If the mind is a predetermined program, as is posited by Computation Theory of Mind (CTM) that fundamentally underlays the study of Cognitive Science, then the mind must also have an end, which would be explained through teleonomy.

I believe that empirical teleonomy can get far in a pursuit to achieve approximation to plausible human teleonomy (the empirically evident purpose or end-directedness in conscious experience). As William James - the father of psychology - once argued, the human mind is vitally a habit machine. William James believed in free will but as an additional factor besides deterministic psychological choice.

William James developed his two-stage model of free will. In his model, he tries to explain how it is people come to the making of a decision and what factors are involved in it. He firstly defines our basic ability to choose as free will. Then he specifies our two factors as chance and choice. "James's two-stage model effectively separates chance (the in-deterministic free element) from choice (an arguably determinate decision that follows causally from one's character, values, and especially feelings and desires at the moment of decision)."

The deterministic psychological choice might be mimicked using teleonomic science such as a combination of psychology, anthropology, neuroscience and other fields, which is what the field Cognitive Science is set out to do. The free element that William James mentioned might be considered negligible or even aversive in the face of centrally and/or scientifically controlled value-endpoints.

The ideology of eugenics is for humanity to self-control and scientifically master evolution. It is an extension of scientism, the belief that the interests of science weigh higher than human moral interests (free will).

Eugenics originates from evolution theory. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, is credited with coining the term "eugenics" in 1883 and developing the concept based on his own heredity theory and Darwin's evolution theory. Eugenics is an ideology that naturally flows out of the ideas related to determinism.

It makes sense that humanity will attempt to scientifically control its (moral) value-endpoints, and Cognitive Science and a world dominated by scientific AI (that cognitive science would create) would provide a means.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmThe problem is, that’s not how organisms and minds operate.

It seems evident to me, that there is a significant movement in science that believes that the mind does work according to deterministic teleonomy, with Cognitive Science being fundamentally based on the idea.

Cognitive science in the US has seen 4x growth of students in the past 2 years.

The point is: when AI sufficiently advances, they might not need to substantiate their theories philosophically. Philosophy beyond science might reside in an 'illusive free context' and might face a hard time to provide a ground for any sort of practical demands.

What will your argument mean, that metaphysically, AI isn't conscious as a human or animal, when its teleonomic capacity on behalf of scientifically controlled value-endpoints outperforms that of humans?

What is the human other than what it ultimately became, as describe-able by science? What is the human other than the world that it created, using science as foundation? What is the human other than how it performs within that scientifically created world?

A spiritual dream experience? Illusion according to Daniel Dennett who proposed the "cassette theory" that suggests that dream experiences are the product of unconscious processes without the presence of consciousness, a theory that is rooted in cognitive science.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmNo computer systems, as advanced as it can be, feels or desires anything, it has no intrinsic need in relation to the environment where it stays.

If the cosmos is not deterministic, then perhaps a logical conclusion could be, that AI itself is part of life just as the whole cosmos is part of life, and thus that AI (including today's LLM's) can perform on behalf of life itself, which is the quality 'be alive'.

If cosmic structure is non-deterministic and purposeful (intelligently designed), then how can it possibly be said that AI isn't?

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 5:24 am

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmIt’s noticeable that the quoted definition of teleonomy includes this notion: a “terminus foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior”, in other words, it implies determinism. If AI is identified with natural intelligence insofar it refers to deterministic behavior, you’re indeed (and obviously) equating cognition and consciousness with computer algorithms, while at the same time equating their predeterministic nature with the inner drives of organisms. The problem is, that’s not how organisms and minds operate.

Ernst Mayr, the author of the quote, is one of the first to pioneer the concept teleonomy in biology.

Teleonomy is an attempt by evolutionary theorists to achieve teleology (purpose in natural phenomena a.k.a. intelligent design) in a way that is compatible with determinism. If the mind is a predetermined program, as is posited by Computation Theory of Mind (CTM) that fundamentally underlays the study of Cognitive Science, then the mind must also have an end, which would be explained through teleonomy.

If the CTM was right, of course, but it isn’t. Refuted by Searle’s Chinese Room experiment.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 5:24 am

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmThe problem is, that’s not how organisms and minds operate.

It seems evident to me, that there is a significant movement in science that believes that the mind does work according to deterministic teleonomy, with Cognitive Science being fundamentally based on the idea.

Cognitive science in the US has seen 4x growth of students in the past 2 years.

The popularity of a particular area of research doesn’t say much about its actual achievements.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 5:24 am
What will your argument mean, that metaphysically, AI isn't conscious as a human or animal, when its teleonomic capacity on behalf of scientifically controlled value-endpoints outperforms that of humans?

So far, AI technology has proven to deliver great simulations of intelligent behavior. Simulations, however, are not the real thing. You cannot go from New York to Paris on a flight simulator. It seems AI enthusiasts think they can bypass the processes or organic life and go directly to intelligence, once they have bought into the idea, inherited from Cartesian dualism, that organisms have bodies that are mere mechanical carcasses controlled by a central command center (called mind) located inside skulls.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 5:24 am

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmNo computer systems, as advanced as it can be, feels or desires anything, it has no intrinsic need in relation to the environment where it stays.

If the cosmos is not deterministic, then perhaps a logical conclusion could be, that AI itself is part of life just as the whole cosmos is part of life, and thus that AI (including today's LLM's) can perform on behalf of life itself, which is the quality 'be alive'.

If cosmic structure is non-deterministic and purposeful (intelligently designed), then how can it possibly be said that AI isn't?

AI technology, while it remains instrumental, at the service of human desires, is as much part of life as a hammer is. If AI gained autonomy, which at this time looks doubtful, then we could begin talking about it as something with purpose.

Maybe there is a point where a simulation is so close that it becomes that which it simulated, like an undercover cop who goes so deeply into th underworld that he actually becomes a criminal himself? Like the old saying - the mask becomes the face.

Not saying it is so, but I would not discount the possibility.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 7:54 pmIf the CTM was right, of course, but it isn’t. Refuted by Searle’s Chinese Room experiment.

If that were to be so, why would there be 4x growth in students in the past year for a study that is fundamentally based on CTM?

Can you please describe how Chinese Room experiment refutes CTM?

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 5:24 amCognitive science in the US has seen 4x growth of students in the past 2 years.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 7:54 pmThe popularity of a particular area of research doesn’t say much about its actual achievements.

What do you think of the idea of Teleonomic AI being a product of cognitive science, and the idea that Teleonomic AI could achieve approximation to plausible human teleonomy?

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 7:54 pmSo far, AI technology has proven to deliver great simulations of intelligent behavior. Simulations, however, are not the real thing. You cannot go from New York to Paris on a flight simulator. It seems AI enthusiasts think they can bypass the processes or organic life and go directly to intelligence, once they have bought into the idea, inherited from Cartesian dualism, that organisms have bodies that are mere mechanical carcasses controlled by a central command center (called mind) located inside skulls.

The following article posits that AI is already conscious

Consciousness Is A Consequence Of Momentum: AI Is Already Conscious
What is consciousness? The cold hard truth is that no one has ever been able to clearly determine and prove what consciousness is. ... Right now there are active AI systems that have started to exhibit emergent abilities. AI has started to walk and talk, and this is massive inflection point that is being downplayed with the phrase emergent abilities. AI has already transitioned into AGI with emergent abilities and is currently in the walk and speaking phase of consciousness development.

I believe that you are right, but I fail to see how you could make a strong philosophical case to make it clear that current AI lacks what is required to be conscious.

Can you please provide an argument other than the Chinese Room experiment that would prove that consciousness in organic life is fundamentally different from an AI that empirically performs the same as human consciousness, including teleonomic capacity that provides in supposed purpose (what is referenced as 'meaningful experience') or value-endpoints, by which the AI can stand on its own legs?

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 28th, 2023, 11:08 pmAI technology, while it remains instrumental, at the service of human desires, is as much part of life as a hammer is. If AI gained autonomy, which at this time looks doubtful, then we could begin talking about it as something with purpose.

This topic is intended to explore an AI that can 'stand on its own AI legs' by exploring the idea of Teleonomic AI, and by showing that the field cognitive science is set out to create teleonomic AI, simply by providing the scientific means for the ability.

What I am interested in, would be an argument today that would stand the test of time even when Teleonomic AI is achieved, in the most plausible way imaginable.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 10:54 pm Maybe there is a point where a simulation is so close that it becomes that which it simulated, like an undercover cop who goes so deeply into th underworld that he actually becomes a criminal himself? Like the old saying - the mask becomes the face.

Not saying it is so, but I would not discount the possibility.

That is the core idea of simulation theory of which Chalmers wrote a book of over 1,000 pages to convince readers of its plausibility.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philosopher comes full circle.

It is an interesting idea: what is the purpose of life? The answer: getting more done in the time available, increasing complexity being a reflection of that notion, could be a fundamental case for the ethics of simulation or the creation of a cosmos within a cosmos as it were.

One would just need to add the idea: "creating a better world", with a belief in science or whatever other dogmatic motive as a motivational ground.

I have noticed your arguments on the concept pain and the idea that a world without pain would be much better. Would you believe that a simulation in which pain is made obsolete, meanwhile providing ultimate value of life in all other regards while the parent AI simulator spends just a fraction of its time during its passing around the Sun, which is likely also to improve infinitely so that it can perform and optimize its simulation infinitely. Would you believe that such a simulation for life is desired?

I do not believe that simulation theory is valid, but the idea of simulation being a natural value-endpoint of the supposed ultimate purpose of life (getting more done, creating a higher capacity for life's 'business'), does make me wonder.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑January 1st, 2024, 3:34 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 10:54 pm Maybe there is a point where a simulation is so close that it becomes that which it simulated, like an undercover cop who goes so deeply into th underworld that he actually becomes a criminal himself? Like the old saying - the mask becomes the face.

Not saying it is so, but I would not discount the possibility.

That is the core idea of simulation theory of which Chalmers wrote a book of over 1,000 pages to convince readers of its plausibility.

David Chalmers: From Dualism to Deism (book Reality+ about the cutting edge of VR, AI and philosophy)
A philosopher comes full circle.

It is an interesting idea: what is the purpose of life? The answer: getting more done in the time available, increasing complexity being a reflection of that notion, could be a fundamental case for the ethics of simulation or the creation of a cosmos within a cosmos as it were.

One would just need to add the idea: "creating a better world", with a belief in science or whatever other dogmatic motive as a motivational ground.

I have noticed your arguments on the concept pain and the idea that a world without pain would be much better. Would you believe that a simulation in which pain is made obsolete, meanwhile providing ultimate value of life in all other regards while the parent AI simulator spends just a fraction of its time during its passing around the Sun, which is likely also to improve infinitely so that it can perform and optimize its simulation infinitely. Would you believe that such a simulation for life is desired?

I do not believe that simulation theory is valid, but the idea of simulation being a natural value-endpoint of the supposed ultimate purpose of life (getting more done, creating a higher capacity for life's 'business'), does make me wonder.

I tend to agree. The issue with simulation theory, for me, is that it sidesteps the processes of evolution, like trying to create life without using organic molecules. Simulated humans seem to be superficial, no matter how close they seem to be.

I do think that the elimination of suffering is a major goal for life. Trillions of organisms have lived and died, each trying its darnedest not to suffer. Is life getting better at not suffering? Maybe some humans.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 1st, 2024, 12:11 pmI tend to agree. The issue with simulation theory, for me, is that it sidesteps the processes of evolution, like trying to create life without using organic molecules. Simulated humans seem to be superficial, no matter how close they seem to be.

I do think that the elimination of suffering is a major goal for life. Trillions of organisms have lived and died, each trying its darnedest not to suffer. Is life getting better at not suffering? Maybe some humans.

Did you read the book of David Chalmers?

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑January 2nd, 2024, 1:12 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 1st, 2024, 12:11 pmI tend to agree. The issue with simulation theory, for me, is that it sidesteps the processes of evolution, like trying to create life without using organic molecules. Simulated humans seem to be superficial, no matter how close they seem to be.

I do think that the elimination of suffering is a major goal for life. Trillions of organisms have lived and died, each trying its darnedest not to suffer. Is life getting better at not suffering? Maybe some humans.

Did you read the book of David Chalmers?

No, all I know about him are his thoughts about the hard problem.

That was my perception of him as well, and it was shocking at first to experience him making a serious case for simulation theory. In retro-perspective I started to re-consider his reserve in his answers to questions about consciousness, in which he essentially gave all possible answers. But after reading further I learned that David Chalmers was actually one of the first pioneers of Simulation Theory and an active advocate of it since the beginning of his career. So his book is not about a philosophical conversion but actually about a theory that he helped develop many decades ago, and he is serious about the idea that consciousness can be simulated and that consciousness can be uploaded into a machine (brain-in-a-vat).

His book is very interesting because those +1,000 pages are not boring in any way, and contain a serious attempt to make a case for Simulation Theory, pulling all available strings in-depth so to speak. And what is nice as well, is that his book promotes philosophy to a general audience and especially younger readers, was my perception, by a fun and stimulating writing style (using Chalmers publicly known character) that shows what philosophy is about, in this case being, how philosophy is capable of making a solid defense of Simulation Theory. So he is not just making a case for Simulation Theory, but he also looks at what he is doing from the outside as it were and shows how he does it to show the inner workings of philosophy.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑January 1st, 2024, 3:18 am

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 7:54 pmIf the CTM was right, of course, but it isn’t. Refuted by Searle’s Chinese Room experiment.

If that were to be so, why would there be 4x growth in students in the past year for a study that is fundamentally based on CTM?

There could be several answers, but again, being popular does not entail being right.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑January 1st, 2024, 3:18 am
Can you please describe how Chinese Room experiment refutes CTM?

AI performs syntactic operations, not semantic ones. It doesn’t understand anything of what it processes.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑January 1st, 2024, 3:18 am

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 5:24 amCognitive science in the US has seen 4x growth of students in the past 2 years.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 7:54 pmThe popularity of a particular area of research doesn’t say much about its actual achievements.

What do you think of the idea of Teleonomic AI being a product of cognitive science, and the idea that Teleonomic AI could achieve approximation to plausible human teleonomy?

To replicate the intelligent behavior of a self-regulating organism you have to produce at least something similar to a self-regulating organism. Every cell of that organism has a predetermined function and works in conjunction with other cells in the form of tissues, organs and systems, with one overall function (or purpose if you like): keeping that organism alive and reproduce. One of those systems is the Central Nervous Systems, which includes the brain. While you can think of sensations, cognition and consciousness as higher functions within an organism, they are still organic functions related to its bodily needs in relation to the environment where that organism lives. You might want to say that when thinking of creating artificial intelligence you are not interested in any of this, but only in replicating the intelligent processes themselves. Well, sure you can say that, but you will be missing the essential when trying to infuse purpose on inanimate matter. You will have to resort to algorithms, to pre-programmed computational operations, but that will not be purpose, just a simulation of purpose. The only purpose will be in the human programmer.

ConsciousAI wrote: ↑January 1st, 2024, 3:18 am

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 31st, 2023, 7:54 pmSo far, AI technology has proven to deliver great simulations of intelligent behavior. Simulations, however, are not the real thing. You cannot go from New York to Paris on a flight simulator. It seems AI enthusiasts think they can bypass the processes or organic life and go directly to intelligence, once they have bought into the idea, inherited from Cartesian dualism, that organisms have bodies that are mere mechanical carcasses controlled by a central command center (called mind) located inside skulls.

The following article posits that AI is already conscious

Consciousness Is A Consequence Of Momentum: AI Is Already Conscious
What is consciousness? The cold hard truth is that no one has ever been able to clearly determine and prove what consciousness is. ... Right now there are active AI systems that have started to exhibit emergent abilities. AI has started to walk and talk, and this is massive inflection point that is being downplayed with the phrase emergent abilities. AI has already transitioned into AGI with emergent abilities and is currently in the walk and speaking phase of consciousness development.

Please show me the remarkable AI technology that started to walk and talk by its own initiative.

Sarcasm. Everyone recognizes milestones with AI.
Sarcasm is out there in the boundary of feeling and intelligence… and so is the rhetorical.
Imagine conscious AI using sarcasm when in a serious interchange. Maybe a little humorous artificial personality will do it.