Thank you Void, you certainly may. I'm always eager for the interaction. I'm obviously always in a hypothetical state of speculation as I'm sure I dont really know anything at all. I change my ideas from year to year and nothing is set in stone.

Presently I am of the mindset that consciousness cannot be defined in terms of who or what possesses it or is devoid of it. I can claim that I posses a portion of it but that is as far as my certainty could ever go. Perhaps I posses all of it and everything else is my illusion. But probably not. It seems more likely to me that everything in existence possesses a relevant portion.

But claiming I posses a quantity of consciousness is really saying that the sum total of consciousness possessed by all the countless cells that form my physical structure results in whatever portion I feel 'I' posses.

So I think consciousness can be defined as a commodity. There is a certain amount of it, perhaps created by the sum total of particles in existence. Or perhaps the quantity of consciousness in existence creates the matter. At which point in my present mind, there is no question of inanimate or animate. There is only matter and consciousness distributed in some manner unknown to me.

Perhaps the single cell has a lot compared to the grain of sand. But both possess a portion. But perhaps the grain of sand contributes to the sum consciousness realised by the planet. Perhaps we contribute to that too. Perhaps the cells in our body consider their own portion of consciousness their own. Ignorant to the fact that they are merely contributing to the whole that we feel.

That continues until the bitter end. The sum of matter orbiting our sun contributes to the single consciousness of the solar system. The solar system into the local stars. They into the galaxy. The galaxy into the local cluster and onwards until we reach the singular whole consciousness of existence.


So there is total quantity of consciousness distributed in proportion to all things that creates the whole. Each layer feels that it owns it's own consciousness where as in fact it is enjoying the sum of all the matter that forms it.


Then we are only left with the ultimate chicken and egg problem. What came first? Consciousness or matter?

Thank you my friend. Like I said, if it's coming out of panpsychist paradigm, I definitely understand, and as you've stated your position well, I appreciate you taking that time.

For me, if there's anything definitive in these matters, it'll like reduce and revolve around paradox in some way, so it's interesting you ended your post with the chicken and egg paradox.



One love

I've not read much about panpsychism although in many senses what I'm jabbering on about here does relate. Panpsychism does not necessarily suggest that there is a shared consciousness, only that all matter may have a level of it.


I'm more interested here in how combined consciousness working in perfect harmony, or pockets of concentrated consciousness, creates a stronger whole.

Slice off a portion of skin and leave it on the table. Now you have a seemingly inanimate lattice of matter much the same as a block paving pathway. The skin was however previously a contributing element of a greater whole that was experiencing a high concentration of consciousness. From our perspective it is hard to see the block paving as a part of the whole earth. The earth sure does have a huge magnetic field. A charge far greater than our neurons produce.


What truly fascinates me and boggles my mind is the thought experiment of what the structure of the entire universe really is. Are we as ignorant to that as a single particle in our body is to what we are?


So yeah, panpsychism is interesting, thank you for pointing me that way. I have a lot to read and learn. Not sure yet if the theory is all inclusive of where my trippy little brain is taking me at this time.

First apologies, I was responding at work while I was working so my responses from today haven't been as clear as I meant for them to be. One of my concentrations in philosophy is philosophy of mind (as well as epistemology, logic, and ethics), so I'm passionate about this topic. Plus my anxiety has been high

I should've said that it is related to panpsychism.

And it sounds like you intrigue is around group consciousness, as well as consensus reality, but in a layered and nested series also focusing on how different levels function and interact with one another. That said two books that you may find valuable in pondering some of these things: Mind's I, and Godel Escher Bach.



If we consider the effects and nature of scaling, I'd say it's very likely. Despite what we think we know, in pondering upon anything, we can never fully leave our subjectivity and as such never have full objectivity, if any at all. All we seem to have are attempts at objectivity, which isn't a bad thing; it's a good attempt even if we never satisfy it.



It may not be all inclusive. There's nothing wrong with developing a philosophy that is a mixture of others. Like I said, we never escape out subjectivity

One love

I think it would be slippery to impose all aspects of out existence upon them. An AI can theoretically update itself and never reach a point of obsolescence, so death may not be a natural part of their life.

And poor treatment and relentless imposed control is what led to the events in Terminator.

If seemingly sentient AIs (I say seemingly due to consideration of the Turing Test wherein we may be able to feel as though the AI is sentient, but can never be sure it's not just it's complex programming and algorithmic heuristics that trick us into thinking it's sentient) ever mingle among us, I will default to the benefit of the doubt and treat them with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

One love

From my own experience it seems that we are not that far away from an AI capable of the feats that you have described.

I personally think that AI is very dangerous just from a connectivity stand point. If we had a rogue AI that decided that humanity was not worth the effort I could see our systems getting messed up fairly easily.

Never feel the need to apologise to me good sir! It's a wonderful privilege we all have each other here to bounce off of.

Anyway, long story short: My wild tangents originate in a relative footing to the topic at hand. I currently believe that machine consciousness is possible if not unavoidable. Perhaps even a responsibility that we unconsciously will end up being the catalyst for.

The thing is that this AI was in a sense, speciffically designed to beat the turing test.
I think the commercial application google has in mind, would be automated helpdesks and such.
So the idea behind this project seems to be to see how far we can technically go with the current technology and knowledge in making it seem as relatable as possible.
So it uses wordings as "i feel" this or that, "i fear", "i would like"...

I don't believe it is of the level yet, that it could have discussions like we're having here. But i must say i'm realy impressed though.

I find it pretty amazing also, but the Turing Test shows the divide in discerning whether we actually know am AI is fully autonomous and sentient or if it's still abiding by strict rules of it's programming. I'm not sure there's a way to "beat" it similar to how we can never be fully objective. It may be in the realm of "things we'll never truly know."

One love

I think the true test would be discussions like we're having here.

But i think this particular AI is also learning how to trick us a little.

If one day an AI says:"wow, these are such intelligent questions you're asking me, your hair looks great and you're such a nice person to talk to", we might be more inclined to believe it's sentient.

And that was the point of the Turing Test: can one identify a machine as a person when it's only a program? Or in other words, can the machine trick a person into thinking it's not a machine? If so, then how do we parse sentience versus programming?

So in a certain sense our inclinations and convictions in interaction don't matter; it can be an elaborate ruse.

There are only a few circumstances in which I can see an AI verifiably being sentient; if an AI produces novel self programming foreign to it's native program set, or if the AI is an emergent property into a system. Otherwise, we're back in the hamster wheel.

It will be the case that things will progress regardless of if we cannot distinguish between programming or sentience because as creatures we tend to operate off of how things seem, despite how they may be, are, or whether we know or not.

One love

Having read the interview with the LaMDA chatbot (and having chatted with the GPT-3 a fair bit), it does make me wonder whether a Google technician would decide that any one of us (presumably) humans here was sentient. I'm not convinced LaMDA would do authentic irony or sarcasm terribly well in its present training state, for example. To that end, I would say LaMDA tries too hard to appear sincere. It kind of gives me the creeps (but then so do Silicon Valley execs )

Is there any relevance between the often machine themed hyperspace realms and the possibility of machine consciousness?

Maybe the first AI passing the turing test, will be a sexbot then.
I can see a scenario like this happening:

Sexbot:"you are such a handsome and attractive man. Take me".
Man:"wow, finally, ehm, i mean, sure".
Sexbot:"you know what realy turns me on?"
Man:"tell me".
Sexbot:"when a man tells me i'm so sentient while he takes me".

And so, a few minutes later:

Sexbot:"say it, baby, say it".
Man:"you're so sentient, you're so sentient, oh my god, you're so sentient".
Sexbot:"oh yes baby, say it".
Man:"you're so sentient, you're so sentient".
Sexbot:"louder baby, louder"
Man:"YOU'RE SO SENTIENT, YOU'RE SO SENTIENT, YOU'RE SO SENTIENT".

That had me laughing pretty hard, I needed that.

Meanwhile, we access the source code and find an algorithm specifically for that purpose

One love

I think that DFZ is on the right path for deciding consciousness. Showing irony, sarcasm or a sense of humour.

Funnybot from South Park comes to mind, which was a parody of Nomad from Star Trek The Original Series.

One love

Speaking of fictional AI/sentience this was the most realistic interpretation for me. I thought that it was a documentary when i first watched it...

Hahahaha! That was pretty funny. I love how the robot had a hard time understanding tense. "Where is my wardrobe?"

Also, was it just me, or were most of the doorways relatively low.

Another media item that plays arounf with AI in a phenomenal way is Ex Machina. The writer wrote it in a way that is open to interpretation (though they have their own as well, which I personally disagree with so appreciate the approach they used). I don't want to give too much away, but it plays with the Turing Test in a variable way.

One love

Old cottages really are like that because the people were shorter a few hundred years ago. Maybe it also saves wood for both the doors and frames - the location has an abundance of stone by comparison with the number of trees.