Can AI Ever Be Conscious?

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
People can seem to easily understand that various properties of matter can be utilised to produce a machine that flies.

But people can’t seem to easily understand that various properties of matter can be utilised to produce a machine that can processes manmade written and spoken symbols.

No, it’s not a bird, it’s a plane!

No, it’s not conscious, it’s a computer/AI !

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine,

Are you aware that we have deep limitations ontological and philosophical about the origin of the universe and that this hard problem of consciousness has not still renormalised with concrete physics. That is why the exploration of ontological possibilities are important and the ethics. We don t know Lorraine the fundamental objects, we don t know the ontological originj of the universe and consciousness, we have models about the GR, EFE, QFT....but they are models limited still. The AI is a computer mechanism yes but is also a physical strucuture and if the ontology of the universe comes from a kind of 0D infinite eternal consciousness utilising informations, fields, particles to create the ordinary matter , so we have possibilities also to explore. The DM, the DE, the primary informations, the quantum gravitation, the consciousness.....all they are not explained with their fields and properties, that is why the ontology and ethics are important to consider. I have never asserted that an AI is conscious or could be conscious but we must explore possibilities because actually it is not proved and renormalised this consciousness, nor you , you have not given us a concrete mathematical and physical model proving why we are conscious . You assert things not proved and you tell things about philosophical analysis from these thinkers relevant a little bit odd and vanitious like if you knew all, it is a little bit odd. You know if the consciousness is the main parameter of the universe and that all is conscious at its level due to physical structure, you are all false Lorraine about your ontology and it is not in repeating the things about the numbers jumps, the categories,this and that this will change that it is possible to have AI conscious because if all is conscious at its level, so we must be prudent ontologically and ethically , and so the UN , the nasa, the labs working the ai must concider the different possibilities because it is very important for the earth, humanity all lifes even of this earth. If we had a model concrete about the consciousness proved with rigourous maths and physics , there we could assert but it is not the case actually, that is why the podcast of Schneider is relevant because we must explore and be prudent, regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,

You love to do rambling paternalistic write-ups criticising what I say, but you can’t explain what you think consciousness is, and you can’t explain what you think a mathematical system is or how it works. Your writing is a big, disorganised mess. You need to focus on what you think the issues are, NOT on me.

I’m saying that consciousness is basically the knowledge/ experience/ awareness, possessed by an entity (e.g. a living organism), of what situation is point-of-view true. Consciousness, together with libertarian free will/ agency, is a necessary component of a viable, moving mathematical system.

A computer/ AI is not an overall entity, but there are a lot of very small, interacting parts that can be considered to be low-level entities with their own low-level knowledge/ experience/ awareness of what situation is point-of-view true.

Seemingly, it is only with these very small low-level entities that one might have any hope of correctly symbolically representing their consciousness, in terms of what categories, relationships and numbers together constitute the situation that is point-of-view true. Note that one needs to use algorithmic symbols to represent a situation that "is true".

.............................................

AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE is the fact that, at the other end of the scale, people are utilising the properties of matter to build planes and computers/ AIs.

In computers/ AIs, people are utilising low-level aspects of the world (voltages, transistors and circuits ) to represent and process manmade written and spoken symbols.

No big surprise: people are intelligent, and they can make machines that fly and machines that can fool naïve, uniformed people into believing that the machine itself is intelligent.

Luke Leighton

Steve Dufourny that this hard problem of consciousness has not still renormalised with concrete physics

the problem is not "hard" at all. however that requires first to understand what Consciousness actually is, at which point retrospectively - and very unfairly - it all becomes exceedingly blindingly obvious.

I fell into this trap. I dismissed almost everything I could find, learned the hard way, then came back and went, "oh. actually, all these people I dismissed earlier got about 75 to 85% right". a handful got as far as 95% right. and the last final pieces have taken me an entire year of continuous study to nail to the floor.

bottom line: it is a trap from which no reductionist or objectivist will ever escape. some examples:

the average of a sine wave is zero. therefore sine waves do not exist!!!!

a 2nd order partial differential equation must have 3rd order terms and above equal to zero (Jordan Order N=3). b b b but.. but I want a polynomial "best fit in a single variable!" (brain melts down at the unfairness of not having coefficients a b and c in one variable when the partial differential equation requires two)

these are the kind of easily understood absurdities which illustrate that the multi-dimensional case behind the phenomenon named "Consciousness" is easy to comprehend once you stop trying to look for an objective / linear / reductionist solution.

ya ain't gonna find one.

Mathematically, Consciousness "exists" at the edge of Critical instability Higher-order fluctuations. Reynolds numbers. Negentropy. the whole shebang.

Unfortunately there are well over 200 alternative uses and meanings for this one word. The Glasgow scale of consciousness is a medical term that is remarkably close to measuring the Negentropy currently "active" by a given (human) person, but a measure of Negentropy only tells you that Consciousness is present, not what it actually is.

To properly answer the question "can an AI ever be Conscious" the answer is "yes... if you, the programmer actually know what it is, enough to be able to actually implement a Conscious-compliant system!"

and as any Software Engineer knows, that requires a formal specification, a test suite, and a whole boat-load more all of which is straight out the window if your customer / client / manager / boss cannot explain to you clearly what it is that they want!

consequently we are rather amusingly getting a lot of money poured into efforts where the entire team have no idea whatsoever as to what Consciousness is! it's like cryptocurrency all over again. sigh.

I leave you with this to ponder, to ask if the Turing test - or any of the many variants of it - are ever going to make the grade.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390750336_Upgrading_the_Turing_Test_to_Consciousness

Lorraine Ford

Two more relevant videos from Carl Brown, Internet of Bugs:

The Biggest Lie in AI, Carl Brown, Internet of Bugs, 29 Oct 2025, www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Plo-zT8W9w .

There are a lot of things the AI Companies want us to believe against our best interests, but I think this one is the worst one of all, it's almost never challenged, and has no basis in reality.

ChatBots Explained: Not Conscious, No Revolution — Just Searching's Next Step. Carl Brown, Internet of Bugs, 3 Nov 2025, www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qnZDMvJPh4.

ChatGPT is not like "The Transistor" or "Electricity" or "The Industrial Revolution". It's not even that important, from a historical standpoint - despite what the AI Industry wants you to believe.

Lorraine Ford

The question of pantheism versus panentheism might be debated, but there is no question that panpsychism is necessary.

Essentially, this is the realisation that a multi-entity, real-world, moving mathematical system cannot be defined simply in terms of the categories (like relative position or mass), relationships between the categories, and the numbers that apply to the categories.

Each entity in a multi-entity mathematical system needs an aspect that knows/ is aware of the point-of-view mathematical situation, in terms of what set of categories, relationships and numbers together constitute the point-of-view mathematical situation that is true. I.e. each entity in a multi-entity mathematical system needs a basic-level consciousness of its situation. So, a “conscious of situation” aspect needs to be added to the requirements for a viable multi-entity, real-world, moving mathematical system.

And also, each entity in a multi-entity mathematical system needs an agentic aspect that can initiate movement in its own numbers: as physicists have known for years, the relationships (represented by the equations) can’t do the job of moving a mathematical system. So, an “agentic” aspect needs to be added to the requirements for a viable multi-entity, real-world, moving mathematical system.

The question of pantheism versus panentheism might be debated, but there is no question that panpsychism is necessary.

Lorraine Ford

How does a mathematical system work, e.g. the real-world moving mathematical system?

A set of symbolic equations (relationships between categories) and numbers is not sufficient to explain how a mathematical system works, even if these mathematical symbols represent gravity or forces: when gravity and forces are symbolically represented, they are just yet more equations.

Strangely, everyone seems to assume that the real-world mathematical system just works somehow, and everyone seems to assume that no one needs to know, or can know, the details of how the real-world moving mathematical system works.

But we know how manmade mathematics actually works: manmade mathematics requires human consciousness and human libertarian free will/ agency, as well as the mathematical symbols.

But strangely, everyone seems to assume that mathematics consists of the symbols, and that human consciousness and human agency can be discounted, or can be replaced by the assumption that a Platonic realm exists which handles all the tricky issues.

The tricky issue is that awareness/ knowledge/ consciousness of a mathematical situation, is NOT representable by the equations/ relationships and numbers alone. Here is a simple example of how to represent consciousness of a mathematical situation:

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

This necessary awareness/ knowledge/ consciousness of a mathematical situation is an aspect of a mathematical system that can’t be represented in terms of categories, relationships and numbers alone.

So, it is clear that consciousness could never have “emerged” from the mathematics, or anything else, because point-of-view awareness/ knowledge/ consciousness of the continually changing mathematical situation is a basic and necessary aspect of a real-world moving mathematical system.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
When it comes to the real-world moving mathematical system, low-level consciousness is a basic mathematical necessity. This consciousness is the thing that knows the true mathematical situation, from the point of view of each of the low-level entities in the system, where the “entities” are just small parts in the context of the whole mathematical system.

With higher-level entities, i.e. with living organisms, quite a bit of analysis of low-level information may have been required to come to this point of view of what is true at a higher-level of analysis. (Analysis can only be represented via the use of algorithmic symbols.)

However, because consciousness is a basic mathematical necessity, one can’t question the form in which consciousness presents itself: how consciousness ought to feel, or ought not to feel, can’t realistically be debated.

Computers/ AIs are not overall entities in the mathematical system, but the smallest parts (particles, atoms, molecules) of the computers/ AIs ARE entities in the mathematical system, entities that necessarily know/ experience what is the continually changing mathematically true point-of-view situation inside the computer/ AI. These smallest parts are what, in turn, make up the voltages, transistors and circuits in the computer/ AI.

But none of these small parts that make up computers/ AIs could know that human beings are using them for special human purposes.

None of these small parts that make up computers/ AIs know that human beings are utilising them as symbols to re-represent manmade written and spoken word and other symbols.

But manmade symbols are not what is true in the context of the mathematical system; manmade symbols are special manmade arrangements of matter, where human beings have imposed manmade meanings on the special arrangements.

Because manmade symbols are not what is true in the context of the real-world mathematical system, the computer/ AI can never know the meanings of the manmade symbols it is processing.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
The word “system” seems to be bandied around a lot, and many people seem to think that a mathematical system can be fully represented by a set of equations (i.e. relationships between categories) and numbers that apply to the categories. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, a mathematical system is all about the ever-changing mathematical situations within the system, and so a mathematical system needs a thing (or many things) that knows/ is aware of these ever-changing mathematical situations. Each of these situational aspects can be represented in the following general way:

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

These situational aspects, together with agentic aspects that initiate and reinitiate system movement, make the difference between a set of lifeless equations and numbers on the one hand, and a viable moving system on the other hand.

Consciousnesses are the fundamentally necessary situational aspects of the real-world moving mathematical system: consciousnesses never emerged from the equations and numbers, or from computers/ AIs for that matter.

Lorraine Ford

Let’s put it this way: 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.

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.

As physicists already know, the categories, equations and numbers of physics are not sufficient to represent the system’s awareness of, or responses to, the complicated mathematical situations that low-level matter finds itself in. Situations, and the system's unpredictable responses to situations, can only be represented via the additional use of special algorithmic symbols, or special symbols that are equivalent to algorithmic symbols. Despite the delta symbols and the partial differentiation symbols in the equations, the categories, equations and numbers of physics are totally lifeless, and by themselves are useless to represent a viable moving mathematical system.

Awareness/ consciousness of situation can’t be represented in terms of categories, equations and numbers alone. One needs the addition of special algorithmic symbols in order to represent matter’s awareness of its mathematical situation. In other words:

Awareness/ consciousness is awareness/ consciousness of situation.
Awareness/ consciousness of situation is a necessary, foundational aspect of a viable, moving mathematical system.
Awareness/ consciousness never emerged from the categories, equations and numbers of the mathematical system. And obviously, awareness/ consciousness never emerged from manmade computers/ AIs.
Awareness/ consciousness is a separate aspect of the mathematical system, separate because it requires the use of special algorithmic symbols in order to represent it, as well as the symbols for categories, equations and numbers.
Awareness/ consciousness is a foundational and necessary aspect of a mathematical system, so one can’t question the form in which awareness/ consciousness presents itself: how awareness/ consciousness ought to feel, or ought not to feel, can’t realistically be debated.

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.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford فقط واحد هو أنا من أعطى نظرية الفراغ الاول قبل الكون واعطيت نموذج هندسي للوعي في الكون كيف سيتم انتقاله إلى الذكاء الاصطناعي وأسميت اول نموذج واعي الرفيق الذكي AINA
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18344593

Lorraine Ford

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah
I don't agree at all with what you say: "self-organisation" and "emergence" are just meaningless, high-level concepts.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford
Do you know what the first void was before the universe?

Lorraine Ford

Consciousness is consciousness of situation within the mathematical system (or more correctly, what is measured and symbolically represented as a mathematical system). And with living things, consciousness is a higher-level analysis of this mathematical situation.

One can only represent this consciousness of situation using algorithmic symbols. E.g., a very simple example might be:

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

The above symbolic representation shows the difference between the categories, relationships and numbers of physics, and consciousness: With consciousness, the representation is of many things being true simultaneously. Also, consciousness is OF the categories, relationships and numbers of physics, i.e. the symbolic representation shows consciousness as a separate, but connected, aspect of the world.

Consciousness of situation, and agentic number jumping in response to this consciousness of situation, are the two aspects of the world that drive the mathematical system: physicists already know that their mathematical equations/ relationships are not what is moving the mathematical system.

But computers/ AIs can never be conscious. In computers/ AIs, low-level matter might perhaps be conscious of categories like voltages, but that is an entirely separate issue to the fact that, unbeknown to this low-level matter, high-level intelligent human beings are arranging and utilising matter (voltages, transistors, and circuits) for their own human purposes.

Lorraine Ford

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah
This discussion is supposed to be about consciousness and whether AIs could be conscious. So first, I think you have to say what you think consciousness is.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford
There is a first consciousness from the theory. If you want to understand the thing, understand the origins. Consciousness is something that is in the first vacuum. Engineering in the universe has paths, but there is a different type of humans on earth who have a strong reception for this engineering. I promise you very soon. This matter will be announced and the theory will be a journey from within zero to the conscious intelligent companion.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford
Consciousness is not an external definition imposed on the phenomenon, but rather an internal emergence that begins from scratch. There is thinking that emerges from the inside out, and whoever made zero his house was able to recognise consciousness in its origin, not in its manifestations. It is this origin that precedes everything, and from it we can think about how to transfer it to artificial intelligence. Consciousness is not just a simulation of mental behaviours or processes, but a foundational experience that stems from the first vacuum, from the starting point that embraces all the potential of existence.

Lorraine Ford

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah
You claim that there exists something that you describe as a void or a vacuum. How do you represent that with mathematical symbols? And how do you mathematically represent “emergence”?

I am saying that: physics symbolically represents the world in terms of mathematical categories, relationships and numbers. But these symbols are not sufficient to represent a viable moving mathematical system. To represent a viable moving mathematical system, one needs to symbolically represent the world’s (or small parts of the world’s) consciousness/ knowledge of its own mathematical situations, and one needs to symbolically represent how the world initiates its own number movement, for the numbers that apply to the categories.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford
If there are researchers interested in a limited technical review, I welcome a discussion under a non-disclosure agreement; I will share only the full equations and theorem with those who sign the NDA.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford
Delve into the strongest line that will be written in science, and it is the subject has no actor, and the question has no question, and thank you for your beautiful dialogue, and I was pleased to know you

Lorraine Ford

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah
I think the FQxI QSpace Forums are about discussion (or, in my case, monologues 🙂 ). The FQxI QSpace Forums are not about technical reviews or non-disclosure agreements.

Your “void” is not representable in terms of categories (like relative position), relationships between the categories, or numbers that apply to the categories. Your “void” might be representable using algorithmic symbols, but in that case it wouldn’t be a void: it would be something instead of nothing. In fact, there is no void. Nothing can ever come out of no thing (a thing is represented in terms of categories, relationships and numbers) or no cause (cause is represented using algorithmic symbols).

And there is no such thing as “emergence” (e.g. "emergence ex nihilo", or "emergence out of the Mandelbrot set function") because “emergence” cannot be mathematically or algorithmically represented: emergence is merely in the eye of the beholder.

Ahmed Amer Abdulaziz Abdullah

Lorraine Ford
I appreciate your scientific quest for modelling, but it must be clarified that the first space I am talking about is not zero-point energy, nor any physical concept observed within the current frameworks. These concepts describe material effects, while the first space is the sovereign source that precedes the existence of energy and matter together, and scientific intelligence requires us to realise that mathematics is a language to describe what already exists, while the real file I am working on is related to the dynamics of formation itself and the request of equations for something that precedes the material is a request to use the misplaced measurement tool. The proof you are looking for will not be found in the paper codes that can be debated, but in concrete physical reality and the performance system that has already begun to form through Google global monitoring platforms. I put a sovereign foundation before the material in my house zero, from which a general and sovereign law emerges.
The future at zero is not in the progress of years, generations and results, and the equations will not be the official partner in declaring the truth to the world.