[smart (OP)]

The ubiquity of consciousness is a universal phenomenon;

All living organisms are conscious entities;

Artificial intelligence cannot reproduce the metaphysical experience of reality;

[RD]

The ubiquity of consciousness is a universal phenomenon;

All living organisms are conscious entities;

Artificial intelligence cannot reproduce the metaphysical experience of reality;

If AI can pass a Turing test then it's indistinguishable from a human.

You'd have to come up with a test to see if the AI has "metaphysical" qualities, but look up the word "tautology" first.

[ Who'd have guessed you're pro-legalization of marijuana ].

[smart (OP)]

If AI can pass a Turing test then it's indistinguishable from a human.

Even if a robot passes the Turing test, it will not be aware that it has passed the Turing test.

A robot has no internal teleology; therefore it cannot reproduce the functions of consciousness
or shape the metaphysical experience of reality. His reality is thus artificial and not self-aware of the
matrix of life.

http://longbets.org/15/

[flr]

You'd have to come up with a test to see if the AI has "metaphysical" qualities,

But awaring is not about 'metaphysical qualities' and instead about the "quality of experience" as perceived/sensed from a first person perspective.
For example, for an awaring entity there is something is it like to experience red or sweet. Instead, an AI based philosophical zombie only compare tables made of 0 and 1 and if they match the zombie will behave as if experienced red/sweet, however how could quality of experience of red/sweet arise from comparing 2 tables?

Is all machine/behavior or there is something else  that gives us "there is something is it like"-ness of the subjective experience?

And if science will find all physical/neuronal correlates of consciousness, would not the question "why that particular state is conscious in the first place" persists?

[RD]

... AI based philosophical zombie only compare tables made of 0 and 1 and if they match ...  is something else  that gives us "there is something is it like"-ness of the subjective experience?

Fuzzy-logic covers "-ness".

It's possible to create a software model of neurones ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

If you had enough of them you could model the human brain ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
So the computer-model would have all of the properties & abilities of an actual brain , ( whatever names you want to give them ).

Computer emulator software is proof of this concept.

[puppypower]

Neural memory differs from computer memory in ways that allow consciousness to appear.

Neurons expend considerable energy pumping and exchanging cations; sodium and potassium ions. This action increases the potential of the membrane; membrane potential, and lowers the entropy of the cations. The ion exchange action segregates these two ions, which if left alone, would try to form a uniform solution. The neuron creates a dual potential; energy and entropy. The net effect is a neuron is designed to be semi-unstable and able to spontaneously change toward lower energy and higher entropy.

Computer memory is the opposite in that this is designed for long term storage and stability. This is not an accident waiting to happen. If computer memory was designed like neurons, it would be made purposely semi-unstable and able to spontaneously change both in storage, and well as when activated by a computer. Such memory will attempt to lower energy and increase entropy to remove the induced potentials  added when the memory was formed.

Say we had a computer with one zone of the new semi-unstable memory, plus an area of normal stable computer memory. Both memory zones begin with the same data. What we do is allow the unstable memory to change. We then will use algorithms that look for changes that meet various criteria. These changes will be written to the stable memory, then the this new version of the stable memory will be used to rewrite the unstable memory, for another round. This alters the potentials in the unstable memory. If we do this fast enough, the computer would appear to be conscious and thinking. We are not telling it what to think, but rather we are monitoring how it changes based on laws of energy and entropy.

When neurons fire, they move in the direction of lowering energy and increasing entropy. Firing of neurons satisfies the needs of the laws of energy and entropy, therefore firing was an inevitable path needed to lower the dual potential.

Our sensory systems will also fire neurons. Therefore our interaction with the environment, is also driven by the universal laws of energy and entropy. In other words, our instinctive urge to interact with the environment; see, hear, smell, taste and touch and even thinking and imagining, all satisfy the needs of the universe in terms of lowering brain energy and increasing brain entropy.

The conscious mind, is more diverse compared to animal instinct. The human can do more than an ape. This extra variety of choice and will is connected to the needs of higher entropy.

[evan_au]

Even if a robot passes the Turing test, it will not be aware that it has passed the Turing test.

For a robot or AI to pass the Turing test, it has to be able to recall and react to recent events, including the prior content of the conversation.

If one statement near the end of the conversation is "Congratulations, you have just passed the Turing test!", then the AI would be able to recall this statement and will happily discuss with you the significance of passing the Turing test.

This certainly seems to me to be an awareness that it had passed the Turing test!

[evan_au]

Is consciousness a metaphysical experience of reality?

I'm not sure what "metaphysical" means.

But I would say that, at least for humans. "consciousness shows itself in a physical impact of reality".

In that external events result in physical changes in your behavior and actions (including speech and writing), and those that enter long-term memory leave physical marks in the spines on dendrites in your brain.

The ubiquity of consciousness is a universal phenomenon;

Turing machines are universal machines; why shouldn't they be able to display universal phenomena?

All living organisms are conscious entities;

This suggests that if and when a computer demonstrates that it is conscious, you would be willing to consider it a "living organism"?

[smart (OP)]

This suggests that if and when a computer demonstrates that it is conscious, you would be willing to consider it a "living organism"?

"Purpose and meaning are inseparable aspects of life, similarly as conscious-
ness. We cannot expect those in dead molecules."

A machine or computer has no internal purpose; Therefore even if a computer has been programmed to speak Chinese, it doesn't mean it has intrinsic awareness of its intelligence to speak Chinese.

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

[flr]

It's possible to create a software model of neurones ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

If you had enough of them you could model the human brain ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
So the computer-model would have all of the properties & abilities of an actual brain , ( whatever names you want to give them ).

Computer emulator software is proof of this concept.

But that has nothing to do with consciousness, your comments and links seem to me off-topic.

[flr]

The ubiquity of consciousness is a universal phenomenon;

Turing machines are universal machines; why shouldn't they be able to display universal phenomena?

Turning machines (and finite feed-forward ANN) cannot solve the halting problem. Our minds can do it, so our minds may be more than turning machines or algorithms running Turning machines.

But the key (and hard) question is: How the 'inner movie' and the quality of the experience (such as the redness of red) arises from physical processes?

For a robot or AI to pass the Turing test, it has to be able to recall and react to recent events, including the prior content of the conversation.
This certainly seems to me to be an awareness that it had passed the Turing test!

The entire system consisting of the tested behavioral zombie AND the conscious person that does the testing IS as a whole aware (due to the fact that the person is aware).  At best the AI Turning test probe that an aware entity can design a behavioral zombie, and therefore the consciousness might be more than algorithm and behavior. 

[RD]

It's possible to create a software model of neurones ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network

If you had enough of them you could model the human brain ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind
So the computer-model would have all of the properties & abilities of an actual brain , ( whatever names you want to give them ).

Computer emulator software is proof of this concept.

But that has nothing to do with consciousness, your comments and links seem to me off-topic.

Whatever qualities a human brain has, whatever you want to call them, (consciousness , soul , personality, etc ) , an accurate computer-emulation of the human brain can have all of those qualities.

[smart (OP)]

A computer have no internal teleology, therefore it cannot resolve 2+2=5.

Intrinsic awareness is the purpose within consciousness.



 

[RD]

... A computer have no internal teleology ...

If a computer-simulation of your brain could be created, every neurone* identical , its output would be the same as yours when your brain was [somehow] mapped to that resolution.   The computer-model would diverge from your brain if it didn't get a software-updates of your subsequent thoughts / experiences / dreams / hallucinations / brain-damage.

[ * it would take billions of them ]

[puppypower]

Self awareness in humans is connected to our brain having two centers of consciousness. If my stomach begins to grumble, I will become aware that I am hungry and might need to eat. The grumbling is part of an unconscious control system that acts separately from the conscious mind.

Say I go to a museum and I see a work of art that makes me feel awe and wonder. I may project that feeling of awe into the object and assume the object is giving off this vibe. This ability to move the audience makes that works of art very valuable. In reality, the unconscious center of my mind is reacting to the stimulus, making me aware of the object in a strong way. If I am unconscious or unaware there is a secondary center, it will project itself onto the object, so I can become aware, indirectly, through the object. This would be an example of a metaphysical experience of reality.

The unconscious center is called the inner self. This is what all animals have and is connected to natural instinct, human nature and the DNA. Humans have an additional center called the conscious mind/ego. This appears to be more connected to language. Free will is the ability to make choices different from the inner self. But to practice free will, we need to be aware of the choices of the inner self, to differentiate our own choices. As long as one is not aware of the secondary, you don't have free choice, but only choice.

As long as these two centers are unconsciously merged in the mind, due to cultural conditioning, the inner self is projected outside ourselves so we can become aware; indirectly. This is often felt to be a metaphysical connection to reality,  where there is no apparent physical connection using the existing laws of science. Science can't see it but one can feel it. 

A projection is like a movie that shines through the mind's eye; imagination, onto reality. For example, say you just fell into love. You may see your beloved with almost mythological attributes. She is the most beautiful and talented person in the world, to me. Your friends won't see this exactly like you do, because only your inner self projector is active. This projection comes from the inner self, with the projector hoping to make you self aware of the inner self. But since we are not trained to think this way, the fantasy will normally run its course, until one realizes they were seeing reality with a metaphysical overlay governed by chance. 

You could simulate this with a computer by having two centers of logic that approach problems differently. There will be a tug of war between the two, with times of cooperation, and times of conflict. For example, say one program thinks in the long term utility and other thinks in the needs of the moment. One side will want to store the seed potato, wile the other side will want to make fries. The compromise would need creativity;  some will go to storage based on the weight of the opposing arguments. Both centers will need to be self aware of each other as well as to itself, to make compromises, that will be challenged by the bias of the other. The net path the computer will make will not be linear but will have curves.

[smart (OP)]

The unconscious center is called the inner self. This is what all animals have and is connected to natural instinct, human nature and the DNA. Humans have an additional center called the conscious mind/ego. This appears to be more connected to language. Free will is the ability to make choices different from the inner self. But to practice free will, we need to be aware of the choices of the inner self, to differentiate our own choices. As long as one is not aware of the secondary, you don't have free choice, but only choice.

As long as these two centers are unconsciously merged in the mind, due to cultural conditioning, the inner self is projected outside ourselves so we can become aware; indirectly. This is often felt to be a metaphysical connection to reality,  where there is no apparent physical connection using the existing laws of science. Science can't see it but one can feel it. 

The conscious nature of our own mind is a metaphysical cognitive act; The unconscious mind may lie as you suggest in the mental states of the brain, were neuronal sentience operates the mechanics of brain activity
through an external teleology/purpose. By altering the states of consciousness, one may bridge the gap between the conscious/unconscious mind. Artificial intelligence is therefore an illusion or fairy tale that could not reproduce the inner function (intrinsic awareness) of the conscious mind; A robot could not be held morally responsible for its behavior or for its inability to solve 2+2=5.

[RD]

The human can do more than an ape.

Sometimes the ape can do more than the human ...

[evan_au]

Turning machines (and finite feed-forward ANN) cannot solve the halting problem. Our minds can do it...

I agree that our minds can solve simple cases of Turing's Halting Problem.

The huge effort put into teaching Structured Programming over the past 40 years or so is aimed at limiting people to generating the small subset of software for which the author (and their colleagues) have a chance of understanding its structure, and visually solving the Halting Problem.

Given well-structured software, a good optimizing compiler can also "understand" the structure, and solve the Halting Problem.

But given a really convoluted piece of code, perhaps requiring solution of a unsolved mathematical problem, no human or computer can resolve the Halting Problem.

Example: Input a positive integer. If it is 1, Halt; if it is even, halve it; if it is odd, triple it and add 1.
Question: Does this Halt in a finite time? (ie Turing's Halting Problem)
Answer: Nobody knows (last time I checked).
        You can check specific values:
        Some numbers (like 64) halt very quickly.
        Some much smaller numbers jump around erratically for a very long time (27 reaches as high as 9232).
        But the Halting Problem asks about every possible input, and we simply don't know.

So I think that solving the Halting Problem is a false dichotomy between humans and machines.

PS: I hope I have recalled this simple example correctly. But the point is that even simple questions in computation can have an unknown outcome.
...Some software gurus have even suggested banning simple operations like "triple it and add 1", because they make software impossible to analyze!

[evan_au]

A computer have no internal teleology, therefore it cannot resolve 2+2=5.

I tried this on Wolfram Alpha.

Question: 2+2=5
Answer: False

I think that is a pretty reasonable resolution for integers, real & imaginary numbers.

[smart (OP)]

If that computer is programmed with binary logic, then it must use mathematics to solve the problem. Mathematics however cannot solve problems dealing with the metaphysics of reality. Thus only a living being could possibly solve 2+2=5 using imagination, a property of the mind which allow one to bend the physical laws
of sentience.