We are not conscious

Consciousness, at its simplest, is “sentience or awareness of internal or external existence”.

I’ve been thinking about the Singularity, the rise of the Machines, of AGI (artificial general intelligence) and how all of this may or may not give rise to AC – Artificial Consciousness.

We are not conscious. By that, I mean that this elevated concept of “Self” that we attribute only to ourselves—is a tautological illusion. It’s a transcendence we perpetrate as an ideal we set as an intelligence bar only we, so far, have attained.

Now, we can forever debate what consciousness is. No true definition has emerged from the age-old philosophical grindstone. But that won’t stop me from stepping up and out of the discussion and providing an armchair scientific analysis of the concept.

We think we’re conscious. OK, let’s go with that for now.

What if we take our brains, the source of our so-called consciousness, (we’ll include all the input senses and feedback loops connected to it), and cut our processing power in half. All the neurons, the tactile, aural, visual, all the sensory inputs and billions of neural connections — whack! Take just half.

Do you think the resulting entity would still be conscious? Who knows… Maybe, right? Okay, then let’s cut it in half again. And again.

Now we have an entity one-eighth of the mental capability of a human. Is that creature conscious? Let’s say they have the cognitive and sensory capacity of a salamander. Conscious? Some will still say, who knows? Well, for the sake of argument, let’s say Newt is incapable of the notion of “Self”. If they look in a mirror they won’t see themselves, a, you know, “Hey, don’t I look gooooood!” moment.

All we did to get to Newt, and his unconsciousness, was to regress our own capability backwards. If we progress in the opposite direction, doubling Newt’s brain and sensory power, we arrive at humanity’s ability level. And we’re to believe that once we get “here,” we’ve magically attained consciousness?

Maybe, consciousness is simply a capacity concept. What we think of as being self-aware is merely our vastly more complex and proficient ability to observe and analyze ourselves and our surroundings. Processing power. A numbers game.

We “think” we’re conscious, but maybe what we really are is being excellent at consuming data, examining that data and inferring outcome from that data, that is, following sequences of events to some conclusion. I think therefore I am.

Given this theory—that what we call consciousness is merely a critical amount of processing horsepower—we can expect that once an artificial general intellect acquires the threshold of an equivalent amount of cognitive and self-referential feedback processing, that it, too, will be just as “conscious,” as us, that is, not at all.

~~~

The corollary to this thesis would be: what of the artificial entity that is twice, ten times or a thousand times more cognitively capable than us humans? Would that entity truly have attained “consciousness”? Or, is this special concept we’ve awarded ourselves really just a numbers game, no matter how great the count?


42 thoughts on “We are not conscious

  1. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/a-self-aware-fish-raises-doubts-about-a-cognitive-test

    A ‘Self-Aware’ Fish Raises Doubts About a Cognitive Test
    A report that a fish can pass the “mirror test” for self-awareness reignites debates about how to define and measure that elusive quality.
    Quanta Magazine

    Elizabeth Preston

    Very few animals have ever passed the mirror test for self-recognition — even most primates fail it. The news that a fish seemed to recognize itself in one recent study has made psychologists and animal behaviorists wonder anew what (if anything) the mirror test proves. Photo by Jiro Morita / EyeEm / Getty Images.

    A little blue-and-black fish swims up to a mirror. It maneuvers its body vertically to reflect its belly, along with a brown mark that researchers have placed on its throat. The fish then pivots and dives to strike its throat against the sandy bottom of its tank with a glancing blow. Then it returns to the mirror. Depending on which scientists you ask, this moment represents either a revolution or a red herring.

    Alex Jordan, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology in Germany, thinks this fish — a cleaner wrasse — has just passed a classic test of self-recognition. Scientists have long thought that being able to recognize oneself in a mirror reveals some sort of self-awareness, and perhaps an awareness of others’ perspectives, too. For almost 50 years, they have been using mirrors to test animals for that capacity. After letting an animal get familiar with a mirror, they put a mark someplace on the animal’s body that it can see only in its reflection. If the animal looks in the mirror and then touches or examines the mark on its body, it passes the test.

    Humans don’t usually reach this milestone until we’re toddlers. Very few other species ever pass the test; those that do are mostly or entirely big-brained mammals such as chimpanzees. And yet as reported in a 2018 study that appeared on bioRxiv.org and that is due for publication in PLOS Biology, Jordan and his co-authors observed this seemingly self-aware behavior in a tiny fish.

    Jordan’s findings have consequently inspired strong feelings in the field. “There are researchers who, it seems, do not want fish to be included in this secret club,” he said. “Because then that means that the [primates] are not so special anymore.”

    If a fish passes the mirror test, Jordan said, “either you have to accept that the fish is self-aware, or you have to accept that maybe this test is not testing for that.” The correct explanation may be a little of both. Some animals’ mental skills may be more impressive than we imagined, while the mirror test may say less than we thought. Moving forward in our understanding of animal minds might mean shattering old ideas about the mirror test and designing new experiments that take into account each species’ unique perspective on the world.
    Reflecting on Primates

    The evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup thought up his field-defining experiment while shaving in a mirror one day as a graduate student. When Gallup took a position at Tulane University a little later, he had access to animals at the Delta Regional Primate Research Center he could test his idea on.

    Gallup started by showing a mirror to four chimpanzees, each alone in a cage. At first the chimps reacted as if they were seeing a stranger. But after a few days, they stopped threatening and vocalizing at the reflections. They started using the mirrors to look at themselves: They cleaned food from their teeth, picked their noses and examined their genitals. To prove that the chimps understood what they were seeing, researchers anesthetized the animals and dabbed red dye onto their eyebrows and ears. Then they returned the chimps to the mirrors. Looking at their reflections, the animals touched their fingers to the paint on their faces.

    What surprised Gallup more than the chimpanzees’ success at recognizing themselves was the failure of macaques he tested at the same time. When the paper came out in Science in 1970, “it was bigger than I thought it would be,” Gallup said. “People were quite taken with the finding.”

    We were speaking in his cramped office on the campus of the State University of New York, Albany, where Gallup has worked since 1975. Every surface and drawer overflowed with stacks of paper. A phone teetered atop a paper heap that covered the entire desk. Here and there, obsolete technologies peeked through the clutter: a dusty vintage computer scattered with floppy disks, VHS tapes on a rolling TV cart, a slide projector. Gallup sat on a rolling desk chair that had worn a circular hole through the carpet to the industrial floor below.

    He showed me black-and-white photos of chimps studying themselves in mirrors. What the mirror test shows, Gallup said, is self-awareness, which he defines as “the ability to become the object of your own attention.” And he believes this implies a certain rare intellect. Any animal that can recognize itself in a mirror, Gallup thinks, can potentially recognize that others have their own minds and even empathize with them. A sense of self means a sense of selves.

    Around the same time as Gallup’s initial study, the psychologist Beulah Amsterdam, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, was working on a similar experiment with babies and toddlers, in which she dotted their noses with rouge. She found that most children recognize themselves in a mirror by age two. In the following years, Gallup and his colleagues tested a range of other animals with mirrors, from primates to chickens, and found more failures than successes. Most animals never moved beyond seeing the reflection as another animal.

    But a few did — or seemed to. Diana Reiss, a marine mammal scientist and cognitive psychologist at Hunter College in New York City, has done extensive research on dolphins, including mirror tests both with Gallup and other co-authors. Though the study she worked on with Gallup wasn’t conclusive, she said, later studies showed that dolphins can pass the test. In their reflections, aquarium dolphins studied their eyes and mouths, did flips and blew different kinds of bubbles. After being drawn on with black marker, the dolphins spent more time looking at the marked sides of their bodies in the mirror.

    Monkeys, for the most part, have continued to fail mirror tests. Some rhesus macaques passed after weeks of training with their heads restrained, forced to stare at the mirror. In another experiment, researchers tried marking marmosets with chocolate to increase their motivation, with no luck. (Some of the monkeys tried to lick the chocolate in the mirror.) But Reiss and her colleagues have found mirror self-recognition in Asian elephants. Orangutans, bonobos and gorillas have all passed the test, too, Reiss said — along with one bird, the magpie.

    In Gallup’s view, though, only three species have definitively passed: chimpanzees, orangutans and humans. He finds the evidence for every other species uncompelling, and thinks researchers are reading things into animals’ behavior that aren’t there. Gallup has co-authored papers critiquing others’ methods and interpretations.

    One researcher whose results Gallup challenged was the Harvard University biologist Marc Hauser, who charmingly marked monkeys called cotton-top tamarins by dyeing their fluffy white hair exotic colors. Hauser and his co-authors reported that the monkeys touched their heads while looking in the mirror. Yet an attempted replication of the study failed, and in 2011 Hauser left Harvard after an investigation found he had falsified data in other studies.

    Still, Gallup claimed he keeps an open mind. “I’m more than happy to consider the possibility that any other species might be capable of recognizing itself in a mirror,” he said.

    Enter Jordan’s fish.
    Social Enough to Be Self-Aware

    Jordan is interested in the mental skills that animals lose or gain as they evolve to live in social groups. He and his co-authors wanted to explore the cognitive limits of social fish — so they thought of the mirror test. First they tested cichlids, which didn’t pass. So the researchers pondered what fish to try next. “The answer came: Of course it should be the cleaner wrasse,” Jordan said. “It is an incredibly intelligent animal, and highly social.”

    Cleaner wrasse live on coral reefs and specialize in nibbling parasites and dead skin off the bodies of larger fish that could easily make a meal of them. It’s a dangerous life, and the wrasse have to be savvy to avoid being eaten themselves. In the lab and in the wild, Jordan said, the fish are inquisitive about their environments and attentive to humans, attempting to clean a person’s hands or face masks as they would a client.

    In front of a mirror, cleaner wrasse seemed to pass through the same stages as chimpanzees. First they attacked their reflections. Then they performed unusual behaviors in front of the mirrors, like swimming upside down. After several days, the fish were spending extra time near the mirrors, as if studying their reflections.

    Next, the researchers marked the fish that seemed to be catching on. They injected a bit of brown material (or clear, for a control) under the skin of each fish’s throat. Afterward, some of the fish seemed to study the marks in front of the mirror. Then they scraped their throats against rocks or the sandy bottom of their tanks — a common fish behavior for removing irritants, Jordan said. The fish often followed this maneuver by swimming back up to the mirror. Three out of the four fish that made it this far in the study passed the mirror test, the authors concluded.

    The researchers spent more than three years trying to get the paper published. Peer review is a largely cloaked process in which experts in a field respond anonymously to papers that have been submitted to journals. But Gallup signed his reviews of the cleaner wrasse paper, which were “violently anti,” Jordan said.

    In Albany, Gallup chuckled at the suggestion that the fish had recognized themselves. To him, the demonstrated behavior was too ambiguous. He wrote in one of his reviews that when a wrasse scraped its throat, maybe it was pantomiming an instruction for what the mirrored fish should do — as in “You’ve got some mustard on your chin,” said Jordan, who called this alternate explanation “incredibly far-fetched.”

    Reiss also reviewed the paper several times for different publications, she said. She wasn’t convinced that behaviors like swimming upside down showed that fish were testing how the mirror worked. She and Gallup also found it problematic that the brown mark resembled a parasite — to which wrasses instinctively react — unlike the unnatural marks on other animals. “I think for a claim like this, the evidence has to be much stronger,” Reiss said.

    In response to the reviewers’ objections, Jordan and his co-authors added more control experiments to their study. Now that the paper has finally been accepted for publication, Jordan thinks the grueling revision period made the study stronger. “And, you know, I didn’t die in the process,” he joked.

    Alexandra Horowitz, a psychologist at Barnard College in New York City who studies dog cognition, called the wrasse study “amazing.” She added, “I think it … challenges our presumptive notions about what fish can or cannot experience.”

    Jordan wants the world to know how smart fish can be. But, he said, “I am the last to say that fish are as smart as chimpanzees. Or that the cleaner wrasse is equivalent to an 18-month-old baby. It’s not.” Rather, he thinks the main point of his paper has more to do with science than fish: “The mirror test is probably not testing for self-awareness,” he said. The question then is what it is doing, and whether we can do better.
    What Is Self-Awareness?

    Sometimes it’s easy to tell that an animal really doesn’t understand mirrors. The writer Mary Laura Philpott has frequently been awakened in the wee hours of the morning by a loud knocking on her door in Nashville, Tennessee. When she opens the door, she finds only a small turtle. She nicknamed the prankster reptile Frank. Eventually she came to suspect that Frank might be challenging or attacking the strange turtle he sees in the reflective part of her door — night after night after night.

    But just because one individual animal fails a mirror test doesn’t mean every member of its species would do the same. It’s a more meaningful positive test than a negative one. And even when animals do recognize themselves in mirrors, researchers are divided about what that implies.

    “Recognition of one’s own reflection would seem to require a rather advanced form of intellect,” Gallup wrote in 1970. “These data would seem to qualify as the first experimental demonstration of a self-concept in a subhuman form.”

    Either a species shows self-awareness or it doesn’t, as Gallup describes it — and most don’t. “And that’s prompted a lot of people to spend a lot of time trying to devise ways to salvage the intellectual integrity of their favorite laboratory animals,” he told me.

    But Reiss and other researchers think self-awareness is more likely to exist on a continuum. In a 2005 study, the Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal and his co-authors showed that capuchin monkeys make more eye contact with a mirror than they do with a strange monkey behind Plexiglas. This could be a kind of intermediate result between self-awareness and its lack: A capuchin doesn’t seem to understand the reflection is itself, but it also doesn’t treat the reflection as a stranger.

    Scientists also have mixed feelings about the phrase “self-awareness,” for which they don’t agree on a definition. Reiss thinks the mirror test shows “one aspect of self-awareness,” as opposed to the whole cognitive package a human has. The biologists Marc Bekoff of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Paul Sherman of Cornell University have suggested a spectrum of “self-cognizance” that ranges from brainless reflexes to a humanlike understanding of the self.

    Jordan likes the idea of a spectrum, and thinks cleaner wrasse would fall at the lower end of self-cognizance. He points out that moving your tail before it gets stepped on, or scraping a parasite off your scales, isn’t the same as sitting and pondering your place in the universe. Others in the field have supported his contention that the mirror test doesn’t test for self-awareness, he said. “I think the community wants a revision and a reevaluation of how we understand what animals know,” Jordan said.

    One thing on which most scientists in the field do agree is that there’s a link between recognizing yourself in a mirror and being social. The species that perform well on mirror tests all live in groups. In an intriguing 1971 study by Gallup and others, chimpanzees born in captivity and raised in isolation failed the mirror test. The chimps that passed the test had been born in the wild, in social groups. Gallup thought this finding supported the ideas of the philosopher George Herbert Mead of the University of Chicago, who said our sense of self is shaped by our interactions with others. “[T]here could not be an experience of a self simply by itself,” Mead wrote in 1934.

    Gallup sees a clear connection between recognizing yourself in a mirror, understanding something about others’ states of mind, and even empathizing. “Once you can become the object of your own attention, and you can begin to think about yourself, you can use your experience to infer comparable experiences in others,” Gallup said. No species evolved looking in mirrors, but some of us can see ourselves reflected in our companions.
    The Mirror as a Window

    The sociality of Asian elephants helped researchers to design a better mirror test in 2006. Joshua Plotnik, a comparative psychologist now at Hunter College in New York City, worked on the study with de Waal and Reiss. In an earlier test that elephants failed, the animals had been in an enclosure, looking at a small mirror. For the revised test, the researchers used an eight-foot-by-eight-foot mirror, so the elephants could see their whole bodies at once. They also let the elephants approach the mirror so that they could stand on their back legs to look behind it or kneel to peer beneath it.

    They also tested elephants in pairs, which “gave them an opportunity to use their partner as a frame of reference,” Plotnik said. When an elephant saw a friend standing in the mirror next to a stranger, she might be able to deduce that the strange elephant was herself.

    This time, one of three elephants passed the test. Plotnik said the researchers have promising results from other elephants that haven’t been published yet.

    “You have to really try to take the perspective of the animal that you’re working with,” Plotnik said. For example, elephants like being dirty and might not care about marks on their bodies, unlike grooming animals such as chimpanzees. Gorillas groom, but they hate making direct eye contact with others. This might help explain why they haven’t had the same success in the mirror test as chimps or orangutans.

    Plotnik thinks future experiments should take an animal’s particular motivations and perceptions into account. For example, the mirror test is visual, but elephants are more interested in what they smell and hear. “Is it fair if you test an animal that’s not a primarily visual animal and they fail?” Plotnik said. “You could make that argument for dogs.”

    Dogs are lousy at recognizing themselves in mirrors. But Horowitz recently designed an “olfactory mirror test” for dogs. She found that dogs spent longer sniffing samples of their own urine when it had an extra scent “mark” added to it.

    “It’s challenging for us as visual creatures to imagine ourselves into the sensory worlds of nonvisual animals,” Horowitz said. But we have to do it, she thinks, if we want to understand how their minds work.

    Reiss, who calls Horowitz a friend, doesn’t think the olfactory mirror study proves dogs can recognize themselves. But she thinks the experiment is an interesting jumping-off point. “How else can we [design] tests to get glimpses into what animals know about themselves?” she said.

    As empathetic as Homo sapiens is, we struggle to place ourselves in the viewpoints of other species. Yet this kind of understanding could help us not just to grasp our own place in the world but to protect the world. For example, Plotnik said, a lack of habitat for Asian elephants is driving conflict between the endangered species and humans. “I think a lot of what’s missing from the debate around how to solve this conflict is the elephant’s perspective,” he said. The kind of insight we get from putting pachyderms in front of mirrors might be a helpful window into their minds.

    Several mirrors decorate the walls of Gallup’s office, partially hidden behind the towers of papers. It’s just a coincidence, he told me — the mirrors were there when he moved in. He got up from his chair to show me another coincidence born of pareidolia, our mind’s inclination to look for faces. In the black wood grain of his office door, a student had once pointed out the barely discernible face of a gorilla. Gordon traced it for me: an eye, another eye, two nostrils. He directed me to stand in front of the door and move back and forth until I saw it.

    Suddenly the light caught the grain in just the right way and the gorilla’s giant face emerged. It stared back at me directly, as a real gorilla never would, like a glimpse straight into the unknowable mind of an animal. “I do see it!” I said. Gallup laughed delightedly. “Isn’t it amazing?” he asked. Then it was gone.

    Elizabeth Preston is a freelance science writer whose work has appeared in the Atlantic, the Boston Globe, Slate, Wired, National Geographic and many other publications.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. No! Dogs, cats, mice, spiders, all are aware of themselves, but perhaps they are not aware of /being/ aware. As humans, we are aware that we’re aware, and that has nothing to do with ‘horsepower’. Rather it stems from chemistry – hormones and all the other chemical conductors of information that tell us about how we ‘feel’. You cannot discuss consciousness and self-awareness by leaving out half of what creates awareness in all living things.

    And let’s not forget that /we/ created the concept of self-awareness/consciousness, so it cannot be based on anything other than what we know. What /we/ know.

    There may well be other forms of life or consciousness or whatever you want to call it, but those other forms evolved as a response to their own, unique environment. By contrast, AI or AC as you call it, is a manufactured thing that is modelled on only one half of what gives us self-awareness. Increasing the horsepower will never lead to sentience.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. But is our awareness real or is it a form of pseudo-awareness where we simply think we’re we’re fully conscious? I have the impression many reactive mechanisms of humans are simply robotic re-enactments of previously observed behaviour.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You’re right Pinky. It all depends on how you define awareness. If you say we’re only aware if we are consciously making every decision – e.g. left foot move 10 inches, now right foot move ten inches, I feel an itch so left hand scratch left buttock. Ahem, etc. By that definition, no, 95% of the time, we probably aren’t aware.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Behavioural ecology? Oh I like that. Sorry, Pinky, I haven’t come across that term before, but it feels ‘right’. The older I get, the more I see myself saying/doing/thinking things that must have been part of my conditioning as a young child. Children are learning machines, and parents/society will teach them ‘something’ whether those parents/society are aware of doing the conditioning. It is inevitable. If unconscious bias governs the behaviour of adults, then how likely is it that said unconscious bias won’t be forced onto their children? Fascinating and yes, shocking.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. I’m fairly obsessed with behavioural ecology – both in its academic form, but also as a loose mechanism. If we look at something like sibling rivalry, we see that it’s not so much caused by events, but is played out through events.

              Liked by 3 people

    2. Hey, thanks for contributing your opinion. Well stated.

      I would point out that our anthropocentric/biocentric focus may forbid us from distancing ourselves far enough from the concept so as to render our opinions valid. Were we able to recuse ourselves from the question, then the entity in judgement might give a different answer.

      To state that only biology can assemble the chemicals and electrical connections in sufficient quantities and patterns as to enable “mind” to emerge is to admit that our biological bias taints our verdict.

      I don’t believe spiders are “aware” of anything, but that they react to their environment in ways to make us think they are aware. Cephalopods, on the other hand, appear to have the cognitive ability to experience, remember and think with sentient intent. But I suspect that given the right silicon combinations that a octo-cyber-pus might give us the same impression.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. -grin- you’re absolutely right about us being unable to step outside our own biology to make unbiased judgements. But… if you’ve ever had to deal with a huntsman spider, you will know that some run away, some try to hide and some jump towards you. Three options, from which they make a choice by some mechanism.
        The fact that you refuse to see that behaviour as in any way aware is proof of your point about OUR biological bias.

        That bias works in a negative way towards animals we deem to be less evolved than ourselves, yet it works in a positive way towards creations we make in our own image – i.e. AI.

        From a philosophical standpoint, I have no real way of proving that anyone or anything exists outside the bubble created by my skin and sensory organs. I interpret everything, and that interpretation may well be wrong. 🙂

        Liked by 3 people

        1. It may have seemed that I dispute the consciousness of tiny creatures, but actually, they work into the equation quite nicely. There is no doubt gradations of sentience–in both directions.
          Reduce to some minimum and we see the entity react purely through autonomous systems. Reverse the direction, assembling greater and greater bundles of capability, and we arrive at us humans. Which you appear to have mentioned.
          My primary point about stating that we’re not conscious is that perhaps even a cognitive capable wolf spider is exhibiting apparent awareness solely due to its advanced package of senses and memory.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. I guess I can’t really argue that a single celled amoeba is aware, or a bacterium or virus, so yes, I have to agree that a certain level of complexity is required, but is complexity the magic bullet? If you keep adding complexity, you certainly get quantity, but does that equal the ‘quality’ we associate with awareness?

            I don’t know, but this discussion got me thinking about all sorts of things and I stumbled across an amazing interview with Joscha Bach that’s tied my brain in knots. I put the video clip in a post so I could find it easily again. You might be interested in what he says:

            Youtube link here: [ https://youtu.be/P-2P3MSZrBM ]

            Btw, I’m really enjoying this. 🙂

            Liked by 2 people

            1. Your first paragraph. That’s my question. Does being “alive” grant us some exclusive right to awareness? Or is that just us being alive, ignoring that bias and assuming that’s the case?
              Yeah, this was a recent thought I had and it made me think too. It’s a pretty strange twist to imagine this might be the case. Maybe we’ll get to find out here in the coming decades.
              Thanks for playing. Stay tuned, I’m sure we’ll have other brain-bending topics to rumble about.

              Liked by 2 people

              1. Honestly? My brain is buzzing so hard at the moment, I’m not sure whether awareness is restricted to biological forms. Towards the end of that marathon podcast, Bach asks what if a gas giant somewhere became sentient? Would that gas giant then be ‘alive’ because it’s sentient?
                Actually, even after listening to the entire podcast, I’m still not certain whether Bach believes a true, sentient AI is possible.
                Cannot say how much I’ve enjoyed giving my brain a bit of exercise! Happy to join in other brain-bending topics when you post them. 🙂

                Liked by 2 people

  3. Interesting thoughts, but rather limited by the equation of brain activity with consciousness, and a reductionist argument somewhat akin to Zeno’s paradox. A human being is a conscious whole, so you cannot cut it up and ask about the consciousness of the bits.
    We are both subject and object. If you persist in seeing us as only dissectable objects you can never understand the subjective reality that many sages have perceived over millennia.
    As for machiness ever being ‘conscious’, what on earth would that mean? They might be able to simuate being conscious and pass a Turing test, but I somehow cannot get my mind around the suggestion that they might be ‘alive’ or ‘conscious’. Yet it seems at least plausible that a planet or galaxy could at some inconceivable level be conscious.
    It’s fun to play with these ideas, anyway!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thanks for participating, Barry.

      > As for machiness ever being ‘conscious’, what on earth would that mean?

      Well, that’s part of my point. We humans have evolved into such complexity, with such massively capable cognitive power that we assume we are more than the sum of our parts. I propose that this assumption is exactly that. We’ve advanced so far that we can’t possibly consider our capabilities as merely a massively parallel, insanely interconnected, overloaded CPU.
      We’re the ones who think we’re more than machine. When the fact of the matter is, we’re not.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I for one don’t believe humans are special at all, at least not in the sense of being superior. They make me sick. All this so-called “processing power” for what–cruelty and laying devastation everywhere?

    Where do normative judgements come from?

    I think everything has a soul, an energy not bound to this material world shit. Energy cannot be destroyed. It cannot be computed. Hopefully if we can get in touch with our souls we can rise above this nightmare we seem to be trapped in.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I realize that most, if not all, people would have an aversion to this theory. I do think, however, that we take too much credit for our own sentience.
      Steven Pinker would contest your assumption that humanity has grown more cruel and covetous over the centuries. I tend to agree with you.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think we have improved a bit over time. For example, look how the treatment of people with special needs has changed even over just the last fifty years. But taken as a whole, people suck. And if our brains have enough power to calculate shit or whatever (sorry it’s 130am) we should be able to calculate improvements a little better.

        How does AI form normative judgements of good and bad? Those variables have to be fed into it somehow to be factored into the equation. Where do they come from?

        If I am not actually conscious than at least I am not responsible for my idiot voice in my head.

        Do we have responsibility at all?

        Time to go play Among Us until I pass out.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Good and bad are societal constructs manifested through Darwinian evolution. Only complex humans have those self-developed ideals foisted upon them. The animal kingdom is oblivious of evil. Ultimately, there are no responsibilities. The Universe is Absurd and does not care if you cry or laugh, perform kindness or cruelty, live or die.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. Is not our consciousness simply our awareness of ourselves as a distinct entity separate and apart from all other entities. Do not all mammals and many lower forms of life see themselves as separate beings in a larger world of similar and dissimilar beings. We are conscious of being hot or cold, well or sick, distressed or relaxed; and we can take steps to change the situations we find ourselves in. Then there is the Ego who most certainly sees and interprets all encountered events on scales which weigh as to their benefit or detriment to our selves. The Ego is not simply an input but the evaluator of inputs. No ego no evaluator, no personhood. \

    May we learn to see with the eyes of compassion, love, understanding, and humility.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I thought this might be a highly controversial thought process, especially for you, Mike. My intent was to examine whether our assumptions about transcendent enlightenment could be thought of as more of an assembly problem than a “we’re special because of our Id, Ego and SuperEgo.”
      Could our consciousness be attributable to an assembly of a critical mass of thinking and reflective analysis (through neural connections and sensory input)?
      Humans seem to believe that we are special because we are enlightened. I wonder if both this ability and this belief are natural developments of any entity that attains the level of cognition that we have.

      Like

  6. Most of humanity is, in fact, unconsciousness. Acting out of pure stimuli/response reflex. No brain, awareness or consciousness attached. Those who have attained full consciousness have been called “enlightened”, and you know the names of those select few.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I wonder if Enlightenment is nothing more than heightened awareness brought on by highly tuned, massively interconnected feedback loops.
      It’s extremely difficult to separate our selves from our analysis (anthropocentric tendencies). We’ve attained this self-referential capability and now we have no idea how to separate that from the thinking, input processing units that we have become.

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Then that would support the concept that as more cores are added to either us or a system of our creation, that such an extended entity would gain additional levels of consciousness (whatever that is).

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Processing power is nothing compared to the power of the Force. To which we all belong. How does a person in a vegetative state, unable to speak or eat or wipe their ass weep and squeeze your finger? Are they gone? The shell and the brain are nothing but engine and transmission. The electrical tie is what binds. Cut that cord and we cease. As long as the “invisible” electrical patch cord remains, we are part of more than we are. Considering ourselves as less than that, somehow singular among beasts is ridiculous. Dogs know when their master leaves the office and heads for home. Beast and fowl alike navigate by magnetism, not satellite. A feat we fail to tune in to. A friend of mine once put us in about the middle of the “intelligence” and “consciousness” scheme of the planet. Smart enough to fuck it up, not smart enough to pay attention. Dig the dolphins. Even sharks fear that tail. Perfectly in tune with their environment, fuck around and sing all day. Beats the hell outta our gig. Yes we are conscious. But only to the extent that we allow ourselves to be. Use the Force, Luke. Math and science aren;t going to get us out of this mess or off the planet or anywhere else until we learn to pay attention. And then that shit’s not relevant.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I suspect that source of The Force will eventually be identified and that beings of adequate processing power will be shown that they have ever increasing propensity to tune in.
      Life may be nothing more than chemicals and electricity acting in concert. And if alternate assemblies of chemicals and electrons are package in sufficient quantity that they, too, will think themselves conscious.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. You are making my mind hurt, well I don’t know exactly if it is my mind or brain that is hurting, because I think the mind exists somewhere outside my brain. As you can see I don’t know what I am talking about. I really did enjoy your post. Thank you.😉❤

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s