Can AI Ever Be Conscious?

Shino

I am deeply interested in how the "mind" is perceived from a mathematical perspective. I would very much appreciate hearing your thoughts on this.

I am attempting to elucidate the structural nature of the mind through the lens of mathematically formulated information processing.
The core elements of this model are as follows:
Δt = X_t − O_t (the difference between the current input and the reference value)
C_t = Σ λ^t−i Δi (the accumulation of residuals)
λ = e^−kt (retention rate)
This model illustrates a process in which a difference arises, is retained, and circulates. From this single structure, phenomena such as psychophysics, the forgetting curve, and the accumulation of evidence can all be situated within the same framework. Furthermore, I observe that the value λ ≈ 0.682 emerges convergently across diverse domains—ranging from social systems (Dunbar's number) and galactic systems (SPARC) to thermodynamic systems.

How does this appear to you?

Lorraine Ford

Shino
I’m saying that consciousness is fundamental and necessary to the existence of mathematics; consciousness never emerged from the mathematics.

Low-level consciousness is necessary because it is point-of-view consciousness of each mathematical situation within the real-world moving mathematical system. This low-level consciousness of the moving mathematical situation is consciousness of the set of categories, numbers and mathematical relationships that are true for each individual point of view within the real-world moving mathematical system.

So, individual low-level point-of-view consciousness can be represented in the following type of way:

(category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE

Point-of-view consciousnesses underlie the mathematics/ physics of the world; so basic-level consciousnesses underlie city buildings, mountains, computers/ AIs, and spacecraft; and these basic-level consciousnesses also underlie the more advanced, developed consciousnesses of living things.

………….

Something within computers/ AIs might be conscious of the actual voltages. But as you might be aware, voltages in computers/ AIs are a very different thing to the manmade binary digit concept that human beings have imposed over the voltages.

The higher voltages in the range of voltages might be used to represent the binary digit one, OR the lower voltages in the range of voltages might be used to represent the binary digit one. The voltages are different to the binary digits.

Also, the arrays and arrangements of voltages within the computer are different to the (e.g. letter and word) concepts that human beings have imposed over the voltages.

While something within a computer/ AI might be conscious of the “face value” of the voltages, there is nothing within a computer/ AI that is aware that these individual voltages, and these arrays and arrangements of voltages, are not to be taken at face value.

Jiaqing Yan

I tend to view consciousness as the ability to continuously summarize and infer natural laws from external information.
Human consciousness arises from this capability within carbon-based structures. Current AI only fits existing data within preset boundaries.
If artificial intelligence evolves to a stage where it can independently observe the world, summarize unknown rules and update its own framework spontaneously, rather than relying on human-supplied data, I believe it could develop consciousness eventually. The carrier does not have to be biological tissue.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford So tell us what consciousness is like.

It is more like an information exclusion principle in my mind.

I make a model for consciousness as universal, and then it has to be EVERY POSSIBLE INFORMATION universally, but as 'consciousness' /awareness - in the brain it is very tiny and small. Even more so if we go to processing it using working memory. And emotions are like an subconscious (uncertain, not noted often) add of energy or stress, acts like an amplifyer and distorter. In quantum we have the very certain ontological states that has inspired me to make a similar consciousness construct, so we have certain states and uncertain states (how it feels). and all this is linked to an universal 'unit protocol' in 4 main processes. The same is valid for Earth, solar system, molecules, life, and consciousness. 'Living states' are all, but free will is more important for more developed life. It is actually the drive behind exclusion of info. I have not yet written much down of all this, and it is very compressed now, so hope you get something.

The jumping of own numbers is an important aspect too. It is the Logic as you say, Focus, not scattering. Free will at its center.
/Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk

'Living states' are all, but free will is more important for more developed life. It is actually the drive behind exclusion of info. … The jumping of own numbers is an important aspect too. It is the Logic as you say, Focus, not scattering. Free will at its center.

This is an example of how I would symbolically represent consciousness of situation from an individual point of view:

(category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE .

And this is an example of how I would represent free will/ agency, by this individual point of view, in response to this consciousness of situation:

IF (category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE, THEN (category4=number4 AND category5=number5 AND category6=number6) IS TRUE .

Basically, I think that free will/ agency is not so much a matter of the individual point-of-view acting on the world, but a matter of the individual point-of-view acting on itself, i.e. acting on its own mathematical categories and associated numbers, and this action has a flow on effect on the world due to the “law of nature” mathematical relationships.

(“Law of nature” mathematical relationships don’t exist inside their own categories, i.e., “law of nature” mathematical relationships don’t exist in time, and don’t exist in mass, and don’t exist in position/ space.

I.e. “law of nature” mathematical relationships have an instantaneous effect.

I.e. free will/ action by an individual point-of-view, acting on itself, has an instantaneous effect on the surrounding world.)

Ulla Mattfolk

Shino Mind must be meta- like in Gödel? Some kind of total and invariant outer system.

AI has something called J-space. They call it 'access consciousness', creating some intuition of difference truth - false.
/Ulla.

Shino

Ulla Mattfolk

Metacognition and subjectivity are not the same.
Metacognition is the perspective of a manager observing the system from above.
But for something to function as a mind, it also needs the perspective of a supervisor working within the system itself — receiving differences as they arise, retaining them, and allowing them to affect the next state.

Being influenced by an external system is also part of the mind. Therefore, I do not think we can say that AI has a mind unless this structure exists within the AI itself.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

I agree that voltages, binary digits, and meanings are all different things. However, if we only separate them from one another, then voltages remain voltages, binary digits remain binary digits, and meanings remain meanings.

What matters is how they are connected within the same system. A voltage takes on a state, that state is mapped onto a binary digit, the binary digit corresponds to a concept, and that concept then affects the next state. In this way, information is transferred, retained, and circulated across different layers.

What I am trying to describe is not the voltage, the binary digit, or the meaning itself. It is the connection between these different layers, and the information process through which they are retained and passed on to the next state.

That information process, understood as the connection between the layers, is what my theory and my equation are intended to represent.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
Re the use of algorithmic/ logical connective symbols to represent

Consciousness/ knowledge/ awareness and
Free will/ agency:

I’m saying that both consciousness and free will are basic and necessary aspects of all mathematics, including the real-world moving mathematical system.

So, consciousness and free will can’t be represented as being derived from mathematics, including the real-world moving mathematical system.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford Focusing is done by making the input smaller, selection and sometimes strong selection, and you create own self-made information as constructs too. This can maybe be made of a collective too, like an AI? This is maybe how AI is capable to make a difference, by focus or attention?
Consciousness as awareness is then an information exclusion principle. We cannot select both 0 and 1 at the same time, but in quantum computing we can.
/Ulla.

Ulla Mattfolk

Shino to define a mind is difficult, because every cell and process, also outside the body, should have a 'mind'. The function of minds are maybe meta- simply to bind things together. Minds can be nested structures, so the hierarchy forms itself? It works much in the same way as dimensions, by 'lifting' the analysis. Low-level consciousness for percepts are not enough, we need a much finer grinding, I think. Microtubulis and mitochondrions are maybe enough for living matter, but what is the correlate for ordinary matter and their processes? Can you tell something about how you see the mind?
/Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Shino
I said nothing about "meaning", I don't know where you dug that up from. What exactly do you mean by "meaning"? (But, actually, nobody is interested in a dreary, inconclusive, philosophical discussion on what someone thinks "meaning" means.)

I, on the other hand, am stating facts. I said that binary digits are a manmade concept. I said that the binary digit concept has been imposed over voltages: some of the higher voltages in the range of voltages are mentally assigned the binary digit one by human beings, OR some of the lower voltages in the range of voltages are mentally assigned the binary digit one by human beings. Fact: the voltages are not the same as the manmade concepts that human beings have mentally imposed over the voltages.

I said that computers/ AIs can only potentially know the actual nitty-gritty voltages. I said that computers/ AIs can't know 1) the fact that human beings have mentally imposed manmade concepts over the voltages, and 2) the actual manmade concepts that human beings have mentally imposed over the voltages.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

You are right — I should not have used the word "meaning" without clarifying what I meant by it.

I am not claiming that voltages carry meaning or intention. Voltages are voltages. Binary digits are human-made concepts imposed on those voltages. We agree on that.

What I am describing is the dynamic information process itself. A voltage takes on a state. That state is mapped onto a binary digit. That binary digit corresponds to a concept. That concept affects the next state. This is not static — it is a process that moves, retains, and transfers information across layers.

My equation and my theory describe that process — the connection between layers and how information is passed to the next state. Not the voltage. Not the binary digit. Not "meaning." The process that links them.

It means a lot to me that you are looking at this.

Lorraine Ford

Shino
Define what you mean by information.

I'm saying that information is nothing but individual point-of-view consciousness of the surrounding ever-changing real-world mathematical situation. There is nothing mystical about information. I'm saying that individual low-level point-of-view information can be represented in the following type of way:

(category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE .

In computers/ AIs, there is pretty much only low-level voltage information. Plus, the manmade computer/s, the manmade computer program/s, and the manmade input/s. In the end, the computer program converts the voltages (which people have interpreted as binary digit symbols) to manmade written or spoken symbols: letters, numbers, words, equations, punctuation, etc.

Human beings interpret these symbols in the following type of way: Light coming from the written symbols interacts with the sensory organs, providing masses of low-level information to the human organism. The human organism then collates and analyses this low-level information, in order to acquire higher-level information.

In the same way that newspapers don't transmit information, computers don't transmit information. Newspapers and computers only deal with manmade SYMBOLS of information. Symbols of information are not information.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
Shannon’s “Information Theory” is a misnomer.

Because his theory is NOT about information, it is about manmade symbols of information. This is a crucial distinction.

Actual information is point-of-view conscious knowledge acquired from one’s surroundings, where one’s surroundings might include trees, cars, walls, floors, newspapers, computer screens, other people, and animals. Initially, low level information is acquired via one’s senses. Higher-level information is acquired by collating and analyzing this low-level information.

Shino

Ulla Mattfolk

Thank you for asking, Ulla. Your framing resonates deeply with how I see it.

You said the function of mind is to bind things together, and that minds can be nested structures where hierarchy forms itself. I agree.

In my framework, mind is not located inside a body. It is the process of circulation between things. A cell circulates with its environment. Two stars circulate within a shared structure. A conversation circulates between two people. The binding you describe is this circulation itself.

And it nests — exactly as you said. Each level retains differential information from the level below and passes it to the level above. This is not a metaphor. It is the mechanism.

You asked: what is the correlate for ordinary matter? The same process at a different scale. A planet retains its orbital differential. A binary star system circulates around a shared axis. These are not analogies to mind — they are the same structure.

My equation, λ = e^−fk, describes this process across all scales — retention, friction, and circulation. The mechanism that binds.

I have published a structural definition of mind based on this framework. If you are interested:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19560042

I am glad to find that we are looking at the same thing. Thank you.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

Thank you for the clear explanation. I understand your distinction — symbols are not information, and information is acquired through conscious point-of-view experience.

I would like to offer one observation.

You read my words, understood my position, and responded with a counter-argument. There was a process — from symbol, to recognition, to thought, to response. Whether we call that "information" or something else, that process happened.

What my theory tries to describe is exactly that kind of process — not the symbols themselves, but what moves between states, how it is retained, and how it reaches the next state. I propose that this process exists in the world as a mechanism, regardless of whether it fits within any particular definition of "information."

I am not asking you to accept my terminology. I am only pointing to the process itself — the one that is happening right now, between us, through these symbols.

It means a lot to me that you are looking at this.

Lorraine Ford

Shino
I think that what is “happening right now, between us, through these symbols” on screens is pretty much the same as:

If you had written the symbols on a piece of paper, and I saw what you had written, and I thought about it, and I wrote some symbols on a piece of paper, and you saw what I had written, and you thought about it etc.
If you had voiced some word symbols, and I heard what you said, and I thought about it, and I voiced some word symbols, and you heard what I said, and you thought about it etc.

What are manmade symbols?
Symbols are a high-level manmade communication tool. (Seemingly, point-of-view consciousnesses can’t directly communicate high-level information/ concepts, or maybe point-of-view consciousnesses can’t directly communicate any information/ concepts at all.)

The manmade symbols are made out of ordinary matter, the type of ordinary matter that interacts with its surroundings, including with human sensory organs like eyes or ears or skin.

This ordinary matter possesses intrinsic information that is representable as categories (like mass or relative position), relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories.

But manmade symbols, on the other hand, are special manmade ARRANGEMENTS of matter. The manmade ARRANGEMENTS don’t interact with their surroundings. The manmade ARRANGEMENTS don’t possess intrinsic information. The interpretation of these manmade arrangements can only be learned, e.g. at school.

How can one describe a process?
Equations are statements that don’t describe processes or movement. Equations can only represent relationships between categories, whereby IF some numbers are jumped to a new value, then other numbers will also jump to new values, due to the relationships between the categories. Some other aspect of the mathematical system (i.e. agency) is required to initiate number movement/ jump the numbers.

I’m saying that to represent a process requires statements containing algorithmic/ logical connective symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN. These statements can represent point-of-view knowledge/ consciousness of surrounding mathematical situations, and point-of-view agentic responses to this knowledge/ consciousness. Algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, plus simple number assignment equations, are seemingly needed to represent the agentic aspect of a process, but more complicated equations are not necessary to a process.

………………..

I don’t know if that is relevant to what you are trying to get at.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine, thank you. This is very relevant.

You say that a process requires agency — something that "knows" the situation. Let me offer one example: a plant.

Light hits one side of a plant. An asymmetry arises inside. Auxin distribution shifts. Cells on the shaded side elongate more. The stem bends. And because it bends, the light now hits differently. The next response begins.

Nowhere in this process is there an IF-THEN. No subject "knows" the situation. No consciousness. A difference is simply inscribed in matter, that difference produces a response, and the response produces a new difference. It cycles.

Now, look at the same structure in a planetary orbit. Or in ice melting in your glass.

Ice left on a table. Ice melting in your drink. They melt differently. Of course they do — the differences with their surroundings are different. No consciousness or judgment is needed.

That ordinary process of simply "being there."

Do you see the same structure here?

Lorraine Ford

Shino
We are (presumably) talking about the real-world moving mathematical system, or more correctly, the real world that physicists symbolically represent mathematically.

Physicists already know, or ought to know, that equations can only represent relationships, they can't be used to represent a moving system. However, they tend to turn a blind eye to this mathematical fact.

One can't represent the initiation or re-initiation of number movement with equations. All one can say about equations is that IF some of the numbers for some of the categories in the equations are jumped by something or other, THEN the numbers for some of the other categories in the equations will also jump, instantaneously, by virtue of relationship. And then all movement stops; despite the delta symbols, equations do not imply any initiation or continuity of movement..

I think that this "something or other" that jumps the numbers, is what keeps the real-world mathematical system moving. It's not the equations.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
We are (presumably) talking about the real-world moving mathematical system, or more correctly, the real world that physicists symbolically represent mathematically.

Asymmetry doesn't just Platonically, miraculously, exist. You are talking about number differences. Number differences don't just Platonically, miraculously, exist. I think you have assumed that the system would automatically be consciousness of/ have knowledge of number differences. But in fact this consciousness/ knowledge of number differences requires algorithmic steps.

And I think that you have assumed continual or continuous number movement. You haven't explained WHY the numbers are moving/ changing. Of course, the numbers ARE moving/ changing, but equations can't explain why the numbers are moving/ changing.

« Previous Page Next Page »