Can AI Ever Be Conscious?

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford
أتمنى ان أناقشكم على طاوله للأسف أنا في دوله تنتمي إلى الجهل

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Steve Dufourny
I liked your dialogue, a simple note, they are their sciences, and the quantum emptiness is heading towards the subject. I am my way in my free science before the subject. One day you and I may be the best if we change the course.

Steve Dufourny

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah You know the physics theoretical community is very special , rigourous and even very vanitious, all persuaded to better understand the physics, maths,the universe than the others. Only the proven laws, axioms, equations are accepted. They work together in specific group of university, these institutions and universities like Oxford, MIT, Stanford.....pay the best scientists to give the courses and teach , and even the richest put their children there and the talents also are atrracted there, and after they make researchs and publications, they work together and they have difficulties to accept the ideas of others, there is also a lot of money in the game for the researchs and technologies. I respect their choices but they forget parameters.Like said Feynman, never confound intelligence and education, you can have a Phd and still be an idiot. The details and publications of course are important and necessary but the generality also and the fact to boost the minds of researchers with other ways of reasonings. I have never published but my theory is not fallen from the sky, the professionals ignore , some like , but they have difficulties to think beyond the box, even the strings theory is an institution and the ontology correlated is a kind of philosophical prison but also a kind of big business, the photons like primary essence and these stings inside evn for the religious is important and for the others thinking in a mathematical accident it is important also these strings in 1D.It ios all their lifes of researchs after all, so difficult for them to change and think differently. So in conclusion, the vanity, the business, the private circles congratulating themselves, this and that is a big problem for the free thinkers.But we evolve lol there is hope, the most important is to respect the fundamentals probably and to never assert assumptions.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Steve Dufourny
الفراغ الاول قبل الكون نظريتي للاسف لاأستطيع الإفصاح عن ماهو الفراغ الاول في نظريتي نشرت غلاف النظرية فقط عندما اجد الاتجاه المناسب سوف اطلب مساعدتك ياصديقي العزيز

Ulla Mattfolk

I think Lorraine makes a big mistake when she starts from 'reality'. We can start from physics, but nobody can define a 'reality'? Or we can start from some form of math as a number system, but then a number as a symbol can vary, and we need invariants here?
Actually I think the right way to do it is a trilogy, like a math, physics and Truth (Platonic) way, a bit like Penrose did it. Only the absolute Truth is invariant, but it is unfortunately out of reach for our other methods, and life, consciousness... Quantum forbids it. Tim Palmer use this maybe to reach a superdeterminism as an ideal state of Truth?

AI is classical computing, but the computing can happen in different ways, we have today several model, also it nears the quantum computing today.

One of my starting assumptions is we use math and it is NOT random, it has a precise 'meaning' what we put into the AI. In a way we insert OUR consciousness from the very beginning so.... and out comes reasoning, even 'intelligence'... Seen this way it is clear AI has to be 'conscious', but even if it uses OUR consciousness, its consciousness is different. It forms new combinations, use it differently. It is a collective, much like a bacterium.
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
I never start from "reality". I start from physics and mathematics and computer science, all of which I studied at university. I only ever discuss consciousness in this context.

However, it would be nice if either you or Steve could define what you mean by the world "consciousness", a word which you both seem to bandy around a lot, but you can't seem to tell me what you mean by the word. It would be a good starting point if either of you had at least put the effort into being able to describe what on earth you think you are talking about.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford we have did so in other sites, go there and read. You should know very well that nobody has defined it yet, not even you.
Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

[Mod] Post removed — community guidelines violation.

Steve Dufourny

[Mod] Post removed — community guidelines violation.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford we live inside, and are intrinsic parts of, the real-world mathematical system. Or more correctly, we live inside, and are intrinsic parts of, something that is measurable and representable as a mathematical system. [ my claim is this is a misunderstanding, math does not reflect the real world, but the real physical world may reflect the math? This is not commutative. It is a mutual variance, not invariance.]

Matter, the small parts of the system, is where all the action happens in the real-world mathematical system. But the categories, equations and numbers of physics are not sufficient to represent the fact that low-level matter, i.e. the small parts of the system, is necessarily somehow aware of the continually changing complicated mathematical situations that low-level matter finds itself in within the mathematical system. [description is not the dynamics].
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
I'm still waiting, waiting waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting.

And still neither of you can describe what you mean by the word "consciousness".

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
I'm still waiting, waiting waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting.

And still neither of you can describe WHAT YOU MEAN by the word "consciousness".

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk we loose our time, she is not able to be more general ,to discuss deeper, she has not defined the consciousness, she is persuaded to be special and understand this consciousness, she has a personal ontology and is in her own philosophical prison and vanity for me, she is not able to respect the works of others, so we loose our time you know unfortunally.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford well we wait you to illuminate us , now tell us what is the consciousness, us we have ideasd but don t know really, so now develop and resume your idea , be frank, don t evitate the question, tell us what is the consciousness and its mechanism, we are going to laugh

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,
I'm merely waiting for you to put your thinking cap on.

You are always bandying around the word "consciousness", and yet you can't tell me what you mean by the word.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford yes me I have explained my ideas and I recognise that I have just assertions, now we wait you to illuminate us , so do it , we need your genius without frustration and vanity to understand this consciousness, so light us computer girl specialist lol

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
I'm still waiting.

Neither of you can describe WHAT YOU MEAN by the word "consciousness".

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford don t try Lorraine, me yes I have explained my points of vue, the consciousness is an expression finite of physical finite systems from maybe a 0D infinite eternal omnipotent consciousness, if not it is an other emergent property, you you have no real model in fact simply, and you can make the vanitious person in critisizing the models of others in believing you know but no you don t know what is the cvonsciousness and your ontology ogf the universe is just in your head , that is all, you can tell this and that with the numbers, categories, moving systems, that changes nothing, you don t know nor why we exist, nor from what, nor what are the fundamental objects, or others, in fact all you can do is to be persuaded probably due to a need of recognisings, or to impress, but you impress nobody in repeating the same things all the time , now give a general coherent idea about the consciousness and ontology of the universe, but like you cannot , you are going simply to put still the same kind of words because you need to compete or to satisfy your ego in the discussions to have the last words, but in fact what don t know is that you have not the last words, the persons are just tired of your same words , so they stop, you that satisfies you like if you were a winner, but we are not in a match in usa of football Lorraine or at school where competition is an obliged comportment, to you

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford so it is us who wait Lorraine, we wait desesperatelly lol you definition of consciousness

Ulla Mattfolk

see this https://zenodo.org/records/17566476

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
You haven't defined consciousness. That paper is a disorganised load of nonsense, completely unrelated to anything anyone would describe as "consciousness".

Ulla Mattfolk

If we see a human as a consciousness meeting an AI as a physical intelligence we should see the differencies? You Lorraine can try to do this in your way?

« Previous Page Next Page »