Global Collaboration

marcovici alexandru

in order to want (to have the need) to write and draw at the same time a person must have had seen a looots of movies and animations and comics tutorials RSA animate (not speaking of sign languages they enter a similar
understanding comics

category )

drawing comics is about stopping time and focusing on brief moments that happens to fast to realize

this is related with the ai and consciousness in the following way

the current big data ai is focusing on aggregating and controlling lots of information that is handled by server farms datacenters

this is not consciousness per se / in itself like the one healthy humans have i would call it is more like being in comatose consciousness

there are people that are blind and deaf at the same time and managed to learn a blind like sign language by controlling the and feeling the interlocutor body and hands

a server big data center does not do anything else is not being told by the nature of its design
could this be easily changed and miniaturized ?

if the answer is potentially yes then this is the start of an autonomous entity
call it Artificial Intelligence call machine learning call it it how you want

how similar is the biggest computer with the smallest cell ?

a cell producing a chemical substance to be released in the environment and captured by other cells
is similar
with the delayed communication by having patience to draw comics of a virtual abstract situation/ story
also similar
with the servers farms operate with users metadata in real fast time

are there other models possible beside this ?

the comic artist might he be picking up his nose and get drunk while drawing the comics in the six months of drafting and coloring before the release of the to be read by fans in 20 minutes

what kind of communication is this
imagine making a youtube video and 15 years ago and having to answer to comments today completely unrelated of present life status

here to mention delayed choice quantum eraser

the typing /writing of comments is delayed and misaligned to what happens in imagination
the religion /cult of mathematics has been build around this fracture

could not this be different ?

. .. ...... ..... ... .... ....... ........ ......... .......... ........... ............ ............. ..............
[0][1][2][6][5][3][4][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

Lorraine Ford

Why is consciousness a logically necessary aspect of the foundations of reality? And why is agency a logically necessary aspect of the foundations of reality?

What exists at the quantum/ particle level seems to be a physical reality that physicists symbolically represent in terms of measurable categories (like mass or relative position), “law of nature” mathematical relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories.

But the physical existence of (what physicists represent as) mathematical categories, relationships and numbers doesn’t imply that the real-world mathematical system would have knowledge of its own categories, relationships and numbers. Existence does not imply knowledge of what exists.

So, the real-world mathematical system needs a separate knowledge/ consciousness/ awareness aspect in order to function.

And the physical existence of (what physicists represent as) mathematical categories, relationships and numbers doesn’t imply that the real-world mathematical system would ever initiate movement in its own numbers that apply to the categories. Existence does not imply that what exists would ever move.

So, the real-world mathematical system needs a separate agency/ free will/ creativity aspect to initiate movement (i.e. to jump the numbers that apply to the categories) in order to function.

I.e. consciousness is a logically necessary aspect of the foundations of reality, and agency is a logically necessary aspect of the foundations of reality. QED.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford But the physical existence of (what physicists represent as) mathematical categories, relationships and numbers doesn’t imply that the real-world mathematical system would have knowledge of its own categories, relationships and numbers. Existence does not imply knowledge of what exists.

Let's assume we have no humans that measure an categorize. How does Nature continue to exist and evolve without any form of consciousness and measurements, no 'knowing' at all? Of course that is just BS. Nature do have ways to 'know' and react.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford Make a good explanation why AI cannot be conscious (not as we are of course), not to cite others opinions only.

I know of those simple machines, they take some words and give the question back in another form. It already demands some efforts. Sometimes I do this also, and it works surprisingly well. It is NOT an AI though.

It is the term intelligence, it is totally impossible to be intelligent without having some consciousness. You talk yourself of low-level consciousness. That IS consciousness also, you see? Even you says the AI are conscious so? Swarm intelligence can be adopted to both machines and to humans. We call it collective consciousness etc. There are many learning models. LeCun says LLM cannot be a good way forward so he use world models etc. We do have new models like topological ways, anyons. Majoranas. They start to be very near how we do it. And I again point out we don't even know how we do it. This should be a high priority research. I do it by putting consciousness back to physics from where it come. This give the eq. etc. a meaning. They are not just pulled out from a hat.

Penrose says the same, but he is not an expert on computers like you are, of course. We can call it 'man-made intelligence' maybe, but what to call AGI then? We never know in the future what will come. That was Hinton's point. Today we have systems not using backpropagation as instance, but we need some form of feedback? Human systems are all about feedback.

Habit can make us blind also. Can you take this and start to DISCUSS it, not just come with dogmatic pinpoints, like you are afraid to open Pandoras box. Dogma does not help.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk It is important indeed to analyse this with a kind of humility. Penrose argues and I agree that human mathematical understanding and genuine insight cannot be fully explained by algorithmic computation alone. He infers that human consciousness involves non-computable physical processes, possibly linked to quantum effects in the brain. And it seems logic. Human-level understanding, creativity, and insight are not purely computational. Therefore, strong AI (cannot be achieved by standard algorithms alone and a few number understands this. In fact what is important is that we have the functional intelliegence for the pattern recognition, problem solving and it is without consciousness but what Penrose tells is that we have the genuine understanding, the awarenes, the insight and this does require consciousness and non computable processess. He explains this in his book about the mind. The Godel incompleteness theorems is important about the limits of formal systems. The algorythm cannot prove all simply and it is the relevance in the model of Penrose and Hameroff about the conscious insight.
Consciousness is tied to physical processes not captured by classical computation. It is speculative and nobody can assert, a person asserting to know lies and is vanitious.

Artificial systems can exhibit intelligence, but genuine understanding and insight,of the human kind require consciousness, which in turn involves non-computable physical processes. Penrose is not denying AI intelligence in general, he is denying that algorithmic AI alone can produce conscious, genuinely understanding intelligence.
Penrose does leave open the possibility that future AI could be conscious, but not in the way most AI research currently proceeds.
Penrose’s central claim is not that machines can never be conscious, but that consciousness cannot arise from purely algorithmic computation. If a machine were built that incorporates the right non-computable physical processes, then in principle it could be conscious. And that is why I explained about the prudence with the actual researchs. Many thinkers think like this and it is not because a minority of vanitous arguing against this logic due to deep limitations physical that we have that this will change. Consciousness is a real physical phenomenon and ontologically with or without an infinite eternal consciousness, there is a physical process. It arises from laws of nature not yet fully understood,therefore and it is very important , it is in principle reproducible in artificial systems.The limitation is computation, not machines. We must differenciate machines and algorythms simply. Penrose tells in fact today’s AI cannot be conscious ,but not because it is artificial but because non-computable physics may be the key.
If he is right and this thinker is relevant and a nobel prize, he sees the generality and it is rare, many are blocked in their own philosophies and deteails but don t see the generality and these limitations, so if he is right, the quantum states are relevant to analyse, so this prudence I explained. Consciousness depends on specific physical dynamics, not on software, symbols, or learning alone. That is why if the quantum computing continues to be developped and that the quantum physical substrates are developped and the correct non computable dynamics and the appropriate organisation, so it can reach the consciousness with or without the persons telling the opposite, it is an objective deterministic possibility knowing these limitations that we have.
Penrose believes science is incomplete and I agree totally . only the fools think the opposite.
It is grounded in new physics, not just better algorithms, so it can reproduce the causal structure of conscious processes.
Penrose does not assert, he is skeptic , me too, we cannot assert ,but we must explore all the possibilities and have this wisdom. We must be cautious , we must doubt and continue the researchs. A sure thing is that this consciousness demands new physics.This leaves a logical opening,conscious machines are possible , not via today’s AI paradigms.
Artificial intelligence could become conscious in the future, but only if it is based on non-computable physical processes beyond standard algorithms. Consciousness is a matter of physics, not software alone. And a few number understand this generality and possibility.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Ulla,
There is nothing to discuss. The fact is that people are easily fooled by AIs, because people don't really have hands-on knowledge of how human beings have made these computers/ AIs behave the way they do. For about ten years on and off, on FQxI, I have been explaining how computers work, and why computers/ AIs can't ever be conscious. Even if you read what I wrote, you mightn't grasp the significance of it. Lets just say that there are no binary digits in computers, there are only manmade/ quirky arrangements of voltages, where people decide whether a higher voltage will symbolically represent zero, OR a lower voltage will symbolically represent zero. And I'm not particularly an expert, I just have the same sort of knowledge and experience that all coders/ developers/ computer programmers eventually acquire.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Crikey Ulla! These are just red herrings you've introduced: whether or not there are humans that measure and categorise; whether or not nature continues to exist!

I stand by what I said.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny strong AI (cannot be achieved by standard algorithms alone and a few number understands this. In fact what is important is that we have the functional intelliegence for the pattern recognition, problem solving and it is without consciousness but what Penrose tells is that we have the genuine understanding, the awarenes, the insight and this does require consciousness and non computable processess. He explains this in his book about the mind. The Godel incompleteness theorems is important about the limits of formal systems.

Penrose says we cannot have an intelligence without a consciousness. It is simply impossible, which tells me that either AI is conscious or we have put a wrong name on it, so it is not at all intelligent. That was my point.
Why we must have a consciousness linked? because of the pattern recognitions, the outcome that has to be less than the inputs. Just like a fermion spin only one way because we ignore the other way (it is 'annihilated' maybe? but also then it goes somewhere). This is also a kind of 'jumping number'? The same when we create intelligence out of consciousness, we must ignore some of it. The equation is not a = but a < than... still it is perfectly logic, because the new piece fits with the others we have collected.

Penrose talks of protoconsciousness as such neglect, so he get a 'jumping number' in gravitation. But gravitation is weak is the objection. Maybe it is exactly why it can do these 'jumps'? Only a weak force can do it? Andinformation is also such weak force? But consciousness cannot be equal to information, but it has to be made out of info? It is then non-commutative, and again we get a fermion-like equivalence.
Who does this 'jump' in our minds? It is of course the mind itself, and it follow Gödel perfectly. you must have a metastate to be able to reason or do a computation about yourself. Like Nature also must have? You mind does not have trillions of different opinions, it can have generally one only, or some. Does this make your body without consciousness? Not at all, the body contains again much more consciousness than the mind. A rule is consciousness can only be reduced (into intelligence?). At every step of this computation we get a 'dump' that is not counted for. Just like we have madegravitation covariant and 'jumping' we have made consciousness 'jumping'. When we screw the system we talk of agency.

Otherwise I agree totally with you.
Ulla.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford Let's then call AI a 'quirky voltage machine'? The big question is how this differ from your own 'quirky voltage machine' you call conscious. Explain that!

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford lol all your assertions are just your assertions not proved, that will not change how many thinkers like Penrose see the things, if you don t understand that we have deep physical limitations and new physics to add to our actual QFT, GR, SM.....so frankly don t loose your time since 10 years in asserting false things about things that you are not able to explore with a kind of humility and doubt. Sorry but it is true, a real thinker doubts when it is not proved and accepts these limitations that we have, you you assert. You don t understand the differences with the machines and algorythms and that fact that we have new physics to superimpose. You don t understand that the consciousness is not explained physically and ontologically speaking, you have never defined the consciousnes, you interpret it, it is different.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford There is nothing to discuss.

WHY do you then try to discuss?

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk what you told is very important about our limitations and if we consider the geometry and topology and if we link with the geometrical topological algebras. I try this with the spherical topological geometrical algebras.Penrose’s core intuition is geometric, not computational and I like his ideas, this thinker is more than relevant because he knows that the spacetime is foundamental and needs to add deeper parameters and so the same at this quantum scale. Quantum states are not merely informational but geometrical objects and even in considering the informations, they are geometric also in logic and so in adding parameters to this spacetime and quantum states, so we have conscious events appearing with a cause ontological informational that we don t know actually.
In his view, collapse is not random but governed by a gravitational effect related to differences in spacetime geometry, so the need to add paramters and many possibilities exist. Consiousness so appear to be nonlinear, non-computable geometric transitions in spacetime itself, that is why there is things to add to the geometrical topological algebras because topology and geometry enter naturally and universally. Topology deals with global properties invariant under continuous deformation, not local dynamics alone. This is important because these quantum states live in high-dimensional Hilbert spaces so and so in deeper physical unknowns. Spacetime has global geometric and topological structure and this DE and DM maybe are important and the ontology of the universe and why we exist and from what.And the main informations are important for logical relqationships for these physical structures and their properties geometrical and topological. The consciousness must be so in this logic like a corresponding system between the quantum geometric and topological states simply and it is logic and we don t know these new physics and these primary informations and it is the key. There are topological phases transitions and they are specific. It seems that the global invariant are important and the coherences. This non commutativity seems a key but how exactly I don t know. The topological quantum field theory and these deeper parameters added seem this key because the physical states are sections of geometric structures and our observations arive from kinds of global constraints and so we can have topological changes, it seems the key for the consciousness and the quantum gravitation and even this DE and DM.The informations are essential but where are they, in this spacetime relativitic, with strings or points in 1D connected with a 1D cosmic field of the GR and with deeper ontological causes, or in the DE antigrvitational informational like in my model or others like in the works of Tegmark and the mathematical universe, we don t know but there is a logic.
This consciousness has a cause physical like a constrained transition in our quantum topological and geometric algebra adding deeper parameters. In my model the spin networks and motions of these spherical volumes is the key but don t know how do. The algebric geometric topological structures permit the emergences of this spacetime and rerality and even consciousness but we need to add deeper parameters and new physics. Actually it is not computable. We have no model mathematical actually to reach these unknowns, that is why we can explore possibilities physical and ontological without asserting.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Nobody has measured the spin of consciousness. In the epiphenomen model it is a wavelike thing like light, spin 1, but assume it is a spin 2 like gravitation? They differ in rotations regarding pi. Consciousness then become like a polarization with 4 parts. I have seen this nowhere.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk it is difficult to know what is the solution in fact, that is why we can explore possibilities without asserting. It is interesting to consider many possibilities due to our physical and ontological limitations. There is a physical logic in these quantum substrates and the new physics to add to these quantum substrates, this is evident.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny I wanted to add about microgravity and how consciousness change there. We ave seen water and fire change too. It is like the geometry itself change, and so our geometrical network of 'self'. Cerebellumis imortant here. Cancers are inhibited also.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi Ulla,
Very few people know what the USA has invented and developed in technology, such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, neuromorphic systems, brain-wave research, and applied psychology. The risk of a Third World War is not primarily about economics, but about technology and power. These technologies through DARPA, IBM, the internet, Google, Quantum research, Nvidia, and others ...are interconnected with global systems. They can analyze populations using microphones, cameras, and data networks, and even apply brain-related technologies to psychology and behavioral analysis.The humans can be ranked simply and even analysed and checked. This is not inherently a bad thing if it is well utilized with science, ethics, and consciousness. However, the danger is real with Russia, because they fear technological domination and come from communist, socialist, Marxist, and conservative traditions. China looks and analyses the situation. They do not want to live under another power’s technological supremacy. But they must undertand that all can win if well utilised.

Technology now defines sovereignty more than territory or natural resources. Control over data, algorithms, and cognitive influence has become a strategic weapon. Nations that fall behind risk losing autonomy over decision-making and public perception. This creates fear-driven resistance rather than cooperation. Without global governance and ethical frameworks, technological imbalance can destabilize the world order. Russia must collaborate.

marcovici alexandru

so i would a distinction (i ve already written rephrazing)
first consciousness like the inner working brain and body
and second the what is the environment consciousness
that individuals must have to have conscious for

the artificial is less conscious because is less reactive to external medium ( i mean i think it is equally interacting just without consequences for the bounding individuality part)

are the round rocks in a river bed conscious ?
according to recent discoveries , rivers chemistry have more personality and individuality than you might have guess

the movie i robot brings up the theme of robots usage and customization amid common standards
say what, consciousness ? just bring in more data and complexity

then where is the magic ? in estimating the probability of existence?
to try to accomplish more or be more humbled and reserved to see what life has to offer

i could say hey, i'm like an agent of consciousness- for consciousness and intelligence increase this clarify/defines the position in regards/respects to it

Lorraine Ford

Our consciousness and agency, and our interactions with the world, are entirely natural parts of what the world is.

But human beings symbolically represent all aspects of the world, e.g. our interactions, consciousness, and agency etc., with manmade mathematical and/or word and sentence symbols. Use of these symbols is what allows human beings to discuss all aspects of the world.

These symbols are “unnatural” because they are manmade physical artefacts. These symbols are “unnatural” manmade arrangements of matter e.g. arrangements of ink on paper, arrangements of soundwaves in the air, and arrangements of voltages, transistors and circuits in computers. But human consciousness and agency were required to make these symbols/ arrangements in the first place.

We can manipulate these manmade symbols of the world, in a way that we can’t actually manipulate the actual world that the symbols represent. E.g., we can symbolically represent and investigate an atomic explosion without having an actual atomic explosion.

However, these symbols don’t possess intrinsic meaning, their meanings have been assigned by people’s consciousness, and their meaning is interpreted by people’s consciousness. (What DOES have intrinsic meaning is matter: matter has "built-in" meaning, e.g. in atomic interactions.)

Pre-existing human consciousness is the basis for the meaning assigned to symbols: meaning does not arise from the symbols; meaning is not intrinsic to the symbols.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

Pre-existing human consciousness is the basis for the meaning assigned to symbols: meaning does not arise from the symbols themselves; meaning is not intrinsic to the symbols themselves.

But it is necessary to understand/ explain what symbols are, as a background to any discussion about computers/ AIs.

Computers/ AIs are like lawn mowers: what lawn mowers and computers/ AIs do can be fully explained without needing to posit that they are conscious.

In the case of computers/ AIs, human beings have assigned meanings to the voltages; the voltages are being utilised by human beings to symbolically represent something different to the voltages. Computers/ AIs don’t know, and don’t need to know, the meanings that human beings have assigned to the voltages. I.e., computers/ AIs are like lawn mowers.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

I should add that one also needs to be able to provide a concise and coherent description of what one means by the word “consciousness”.

To do this, one needs to believe in human beings, and their ability to provide a concise and coherent description of consciousness. Anti-science mystics, who think that consciousness is too mysterious for human beings to ever understand or describe, need not apply.

I’m saying that low-level consciousness is the necessary aspect of the real-world mathematical system whereby low-level matter knows about itself and its surroundings.

Physicists would symbolically represent matter and its surroundings in terms of categories (like mass or relative position), mathematical relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories.

But the mere existence of these mathematical categories, relationships and numbers does not imply that the small parts of the mathematical system, i.e. matter, would be aware of them. So, that is why I’m saying that low-level awareness/ consciousness/ knowledge is a necessary element of a viable real-world mathematical system.

However, higher-level consciousness, which involves quite a bit of collation and analysis of the information coming from the senses on the part of the organism, provides a higher-level picture of the organism’s internal environment and surrounding environment. I’m saying that pre-existing higher-level consciousness is required to create and decipher symbols.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford higher-level consciousness, which involves quite a bit of collation and analysis of the information coming from the senses on the part of the organism, provides a higher-level picture of the organism’s internal environment and surrounding environment. I’m saying that pre-existing higher-level consciousness is required to create and decipher symbols.

What is doing this? See about the mind and higher-level consciousness. Happily you KNOW what it is.

I don't understand why you do this leap between lower and higher level consciousness. See it like a phase condensation, say 100000 x? About the lower level consciousness you seems to be quite ok. All contains consciousness. But an AI is also far from a lawn mover. It goes entropical, symmetrical etc.,much like in your mind. We still search the answers. Maybe we soon can find a way to solve the measurement problem = your 'jumps'?

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

I should add, to expand on the issue of consciousness (and agency):

Consciousness and agency exist in the context of the real-world mathematical system. (More correctly, the real-world system that physicists represent with symbols for categories (like mass or relative position), mathematical relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories.)

The problem is this:

One can’t logically conclude that a mathematical system would necessarily know its own categories, relationships and numbers, just because these categories, relationships and numbers exist.

Also, one can’t logically conclude that a mathematical system would necessarily move its own numbers (that apply to the categories), just because these categories, relationships and numbers exist.

I.e. the categories, relationships and numbers of physics are not sufficient to constitute a viable moving mathematical system.

In order to make a viable moving mathematical system, what is required is a low-level aspect of the system that is aware (of the categories, relationships and numbers) and a low-level aspect of the system that initiates number movement. I.e. in order to make a viable moving mathematical system, what is required is low-level consciousness and low-level agency.

And clearly, the higher-level consciousness and agency of living organisms must somehow be built out of the above described pre-existing lower-level consciousness and agency.

yusrob

Steve Dufourny
No, Steve! You're wrong.
Russia is now under capitalism!
Moreover, Russia is under oligarchic imperialism!

« Previous Page Next Page »