Where does sapience start?

Given people already tried to say they couldn't exist in the area they were speculated as being in, I think that's a point. They're also useful in both plant and scent awareness. Is it the same thing? Not necessarily but it's a worthy avenue of discussion.

But that's just me.

I am more interested in Penrose's belief that information has no emergent intelligence qualities. That, essentially, AI as we've always envisioned it is impossible because awareness is a function of something other than awareness.

It's funny that you dismiss Tegmark for talking about neuroscience despite not being a neuroscientist when you take Penrose at his word about AI even though he's not educated in machine learning the way Tegmark is.

Edited by M84 on Sep 7th 2020 at 12:12:57 AM

What you’re not mentioning here is that when those proposals were tested they were found to be incorrect, and the evidence offered to support them was found wanting. Geocentric models of the solar system were also proposed, tested, and had evidence. Would you consider those valid too?

If you believe in quantum consciousness, that’s fine. It’s belief though, not science. Don’t push it as such.

I don't believe you have provided evidence they're repudiated and I provided evidence against yours.

I am very confused.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 6th 2020 at 9:48:18 AM

Did...did you just ignore the explainer Archon linked in his response? The explainer even references the 2014 study you posted and pointed out problems with it.

Archon provided evidence. You just ignored it.

Edited by M84 on Sep 7th 2020 at 12:55:42 AM

Even if consciousness were somehow affected by quantum phenomena, it's not clear to me how that prevents us from designing an AI with consciousness.

It feels like wishful thinking because someone doesn't want to believe that AI is possible, so they throw scientific-sounding words like "quantum" at it until it goes away.

Regardless, there is no law of nature saying that an artificial intelligence built by humans has to experience consciousness in exactly the same way as humans. In fact, I consider that to be quite unlikely.

The idea that we cannot create something unlike ourselves is complete horseshit.

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 7th 2020 at 9:22:39 AM

As for the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, that depends on proving that the brain is a dynamic complex system, which hasn't been established. We would need a much better map of neural activity as a clear response to external stimulation first. But with 100 billion neurons, and no known executive control center, it's a good candidate for being one.

A map of neural activity... like, say, what Neuralink is trying to produce? Hmm....

Edited by Fighteer on Sep 7th 2020 at 9:39:15 AM

Yes, precisely, and I called that years ago (along with a caution against the dangers inherent in this approach—think wireless behavior modification).

We get "wireless behavior modification" every day — from television, advertising, etc. Our free will in this area is quite suspect already.

It is, but we can generally tell when someone is trying to influence us by normal, organic means, and can take steps. Wireless digital electronic input to our brain, however, is an entirely new and potentially problematic phenomenon.