Can AI Ever Be Conscious?

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.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine, thank you.

You say that equations only produce instantaneous jumps in numbers, and cannot represent the initiation or continuity of a process.

Let me return to the ice in your glass. The ice doesn't melt in an instant. It is continuously interacting with the surrounding water, changing moment by moment. But if you look ten minutes later — it has melted. It appears to have jumped.

Why? Because you weren't watching the in-between.

When you take matter's state as your reference, you can only capture snapshots — point A and point B. The interval is invisible. That is why the question arises: "What jumped the numbers?"

But measure A and B, and connect them on a graph. The course of change becomes visible. And when you write that connection as an equation — what you are describing is no longer the state of matter. It is the flow of information.

Could it be that the limitation is not in equations themselves, but in taking the state of matter alone as the reference?

Shino

Lorraine Ford

Agency does exist in the world — but not necessarily as conscious will. It moves continuously, in cycles along geometry. That is why the universe revolves.

Lorraine Ford

Shino
I'm talking about the nature of mathematics itself, not about the high-level activities that high-level human beings might be doing, like observing, measuring, or drawing graphs.

Equations don't actively do anything at all. The equations represent static relationships between categories in the real-world moving mathematical system.

If something jumps/ changes some of the numbers that apply to some of the categories in the equations, then other numbers that apply to other categories in the equations will also change, due purely to these static relationships. But the equations are not the active parts of the system.

And then no more number change occurs until the active parts of the system jump/ move some numbers again.

Equations don't represent the source of movement in the real-world moving mathematical system.

Lorraine Ford

How does the world work? Well, representing the world mathematically has been spectacularly successful.

But how does mathematics itself work? Mathematics requires an aspect that is consciousness of the mathematical situations, and an agentic aspect that moves the mathematical situations:

Mathematical equations represent static relationships between categories.

But mathematical equations can’t represent the necessary aspect of the real-world moving mathematical system that is conscious of the individual ever-changing point-of-view mathematical situations. This consciousness is representable in terms of the set of categories, relationships and associated numbers that are true.

And mathematical equations can’t represent the necessary aspect of the real-world moving mathematical system that initiates and reinitiates movement in the numbers that apply to the categories in the equations.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine, I fully agree.

Agency is necessary. It is internal. And you are right — it has not yet been described by equations.

That is exactly what my equation attempts to address.

λ = e^-fk

This is not merely a decay function. It describes an internal cycle: receiving input, comparing it against what is already held inside, retaining the difference, and then — once the information has been read — decaying so that the next input can be received.

Information passing itself on to what comes next.

The human heart, too, was never given to us by anyone — and it is precisely because of that, that we are able to choose.

Were we able to see the same thing?

Lorraine Ford

Shino
And what is your connection to the actual measurable world that we live in?

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
What I mean is: In what way does your equation represent, or connect to, the actual measurable world that we live in?

Shino

Lorraine Ford
　1. It connects to established physics.
When Φ(Δ_t) = 1, r_t = r, and κ = GM, the equation reduces directly to a_G(r) = GM / r². Newtonian gravity is recovered as the classical limit of this structure.
　2. It appears where no known equation exists.
The asymmetry of grammatical person — first person remains stable while second person drifts — generates a geometric series of social layers. The retention rate λ ≈ 0.682 is analytically derived from λ = e^-fk and only then compared with independent observations. The same value also appears independently in galactic rotation curves and thermal conduction. Applying its complement, 1 - λ = 0.318, as a dilution rate reproduces all six of Dunbar’s layers (5, 15, 50, 150, 500, 1500) with a maximum error of 3.4%.
　3. It extends into new territory.
In the formose reaction — the synthesis of sugars from formaldehyde — the productive fraction at the onset boundary is λ ≈ 0.700. The same retention rate thus appears at a chemical boundary relevant to the origin of life.

No parameters were adjusted.

Lorraine Ford

Shino
In other words, your equation has no real justification, and no real connection to the measurable world that we live in.

Lorraine Ford

There are plenty of people who religiously believe that the numbers and/or mathematical equations that underlie the world are self-powered entities that drive matter/ consciousness.

But I’m here to disabuse them of their religious beliefs: we in fact live in a world where matter/ consciousness is what is driving the numbers and the mathematical equations that underlie the world.

And in fact, the evidence right before their religiously clouded, unseeing eyes is that manmade mathematics wouldn’t exist without the individual human consciousnesses and agency driving the mathematics.

Despite the factual and logical evidence about the nature of mathematics, these people are still down on their knees, furiously praying at the altar.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

I think you misunderstood my point.

I am not claiming that mathematics drives matter or consciousness. I am saying that the same structure appears independently across multiple domains.

A phenomenon can be separated into interpretation and description. Mathematics serves as the description. It is the language used to describe the structure, not its cause.

Lorraine Ford

Shino
Was I talking about you, and/or about other people commenting on FQxI?

Either your numbers and equations represent something that actually has a genuine effect in the world, like the "law of nature" equations of physics seem to describe genuine mathematical relationships between measurable categories that have a genuine effect in the world, OR you are merely describing the shapes of clouds which are the outcomes/ consequences of these genuine mathematical relationships.

Either you are talking about cause or you are describing the shapes of clouds, which are not themselves causal.

And I almost can't believe that you would try to mathematically stitch together such dubious connections, as those that you have listed.

But what I'm saying is this: the actual real-world evidence is that mathematics CAN'T EXIST without consciousnesses and agency driving the mathematics. One can't realistically mathematically describe the world WITHOUT noting the causal role of consciousnesses and agency in mathematics. I.e., the numbers and the equations are not standalone self-sufficient causal entities.

Lorraine Ford

I’m guessing that we can all agree that the sky is blue, and that the grass is green.

But I’m saying that we can ONLY agree because all our high-level human consciousnesses are based on and built out of the same basic stuff: the low-level knowledge/ consciousnesses of low-level matter of the basic low-level categories (mass, relative position, frequency/ wavelength) and numbers, i.e. the same categories and associated numbers that are known to physics.

Our high-level consciousnesses are based on analysing and collating masses of ordinary low-level factual knowledge/ information coming from the senses. However, this collation and analysis very obviously introduces a “storytelling” element into the picture: we essentially make up a story to link together a limited number of factual data points. Various degrees of “storytelling” are necessary in order to have higher-level consciousnesses.

Shino

Lorraine Ford

Dear Lorraine,

I will answer your questions directly.

On the first point — whether my equation describes a genuine "law of nature" or merely "the shapes of clouds": honestly, I cannot assert either at this stage. The proof is not yet complete. However, when a single equation, without parameter fitting, matches SPARC galaxy rotation curves, Dunbar's social layers, Formose reaction boundary conditions, and Pantheon+ supernova data, the coherence seems too high for cloud shapes. Clouds collapse when viewed from a different angle. This equation holds across angles. But that is not proof. That is why I keep running.

On the second point: I agree with the core of what you are saying — that equations are not standalone self-sufficient causal entities that exist independently of consciousness and agency.

My position is this: equations are nothing more than a shared language.

I do not place mathematics above the world. I do not place consciousness or agency beneath mathematics. My theory originated in psychology and extended into physics. I am not attempting to describe the world with mathematics alone while excluding consciousness. I use equations as a tool for describing the entire structure — including consciousness and agency — in a form that can be shared.

I believe what you are criticizing is the position that "mathematics is everything." I am not in that position.

Lorraine Ford

Human beings have exactly the same TYPE of conscious information experience, of self and surroundings, as do particles.

This information experience can be symbolized in terms of the mathematical categories (frequency/ wavelength, relative position, mass) and associated numbers that are point-of-view mathematically “TRUE”, to the particle or human being, from their points within the real-world moving mathematical system.

Except that with higher-level entities like living things, it is clear that mathematical collation and analysis of large quantities of low-level information has created most of the conscious experience. This conscious information experience of what is point-of-view “TRUE” is a collated and analysed construct, which would require a lot of “AND” symbols to symbolically represent the information experience.

Even computers/ AIs would be experiencing something that could potentially be representable in terms of un-analysed and un-collated low-level voltage and number information.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
I’m saying that consciousnesses are plural.

I’m saying that consciousnesses are not representable as categories or numbers or equations, or representable as any combination of these things.

Consciousnesses are the point-of-view aspects of the ever-changing real-world moving mathematical system that know/ have information about what categories, numbers and equations are true from on-the-spot points-of-view inside the mathematical system.

People need to use manmade algorithmic/ logical connective symbols in order to represent the on-the-spot points-of-view that are true from inside the ever-changing real-world moving mathematical system.

Lorraine Ford

Equations CAN’T EVER represent a moving system. Even the equations of physics, with their delta symbols, can’t represent a moving system. The equations of physics can only represent relationships between measurable categories. But the categories, equations, and numbers of physics and mathematics are not sufficient to represent a moving system.

To represent a moving system, e.g. the real-world moving system, requires the use of different types of symbols: algorithmic/ logical connective symbols. And there are a few physicists right now working on different ways to symbolically represent the real-world moving system, using their own special symbols, and their own special approaches to the issue. Because the categories, equations, and numbers of physics and mathematics are not sufficient to represent a moving system.

But there are in fact ONLY TWO necessary systems aspects required in order to have a viable moving mathematical system:

The system needs to have knowledge/ consciousness of its own on-the-spot mathematical situations.
The system needs to be able to freely move on-the-spot in response to this knowledge/ consciousness.

There are ONLY TWO necessary systems aspects, and these two necessary aspects of a viable moving mathematical system can be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols.

But these two necessary systems aspects are THE VERY SAME ASPECTS required in order to further analyse and collate this knowledge/ consciousness, leading to a higher-level view of a situation. I.e. these two necessary systems aspects are the very same aspects required for higher-level life with its higher-level consciousness.

Lorraine Ford

Now that we are faced with computers/ AIs, people need to mentally grow up, and mentally grow up quickly.

Living things are not like city buildings, mountains, planets, computers/ AIs, spacecraft or any other manmade machinery.

With city buildings, mountains, planets, computers/ AIs, spacecraft, and other machinery, the mathematical law-of-nature aspects of the real-world moving mathematical system are prominent.

But with living things, the following aspects of the real-world moving mathematical system are prominent, and developed:

The point-of-view on-the-spot knowledge/ consciousness of the mathematical situations, including various levels of analysis of this knowledge.
The free/ agentic on-the-spot movement in response to this knowledge and analysis of the mathematical situations.

Lorraine Ford

Mathematics can’t exist without:

Human consciousness/ awareness of the static mathematical situations represented by the symbols, and
Human free agency to move the mathematical situations represented by the symbols.

And in fact, it was human free agency that created the symbolic mathematical situations, and even the symbols themselves, in the first place.

This failure to face up to the fact that mathematics can’t exist without consciousness and agency has led to the mistaken belief that the underlying real-world moving mathematical system can exist without underlying consciousness/ awareness aspects, and without underlying free agency aspects.

When are the punters out there going to face up to the true nature of mathematics??

« Previous Page Next Page »