Subhash Kak - Can Consciousness Be Non-Biological?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- If consciousness is 100% physical, we would have to conclude that the same kind of consciousness that we experience as humans can be generated by non-biological entities (eventually). Conversely, if non-biological consciousness would somehow, someday, prove impossible, then consciousness would have to embed some nonphysical aspect. But how would we ever know?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the nature of consciousness: bit.ly/3QaBoTj
Subhash Kak is Regents Professor and Head of Computer Science Department at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
The experiencing self is the observer of the objects, and it's therefore distinct from them.
In other words, objects are not what the experiencing observer is, but what he's conscious of.
Or in plain language who is aware of what? - Yes?- Plainly the experienced is discrete from or different from the experiencer No doubt you would say if I say "my" hat, you do not suppose yourself to be the hat, and by the same token you say "my" self, what then?
@@vhawk1951kl But self Isn't a object of sense perception like the hat is.
@@williamburts5495 well said, if that be right, and it is, what is it?
Do you" sense "your " self" as you sense you hat or how do you " sense *Your* (meaning what) " self"?
At one time in my remarkably long life I used to be a television cameraman and when television cameramen get bored - which they frequently do, they play about by pointing their camera into its own monitor, and do you get any coherent picture out of that? - What do you think?
What you are doing with all this myself sensing myself mumbo-jumbo is pointing your camera into its own monitor are you not? What you are getting is the video or psychological equivalent of feedback or howl-round, is it not?
Why do you bother with that nonsense - there is simply no point in pointing a television camera into its own monitor because you get nothing coherent from doing that, so simply don't do it
That creature Kuhn specialises in pouring from the empty into the void and he's collecting a healthy living out of doing that, no doubt and all he is doing is luring you into the process of pouring from the empty into the void which which effectively involves pointing your camera at its own monitor or possibly a microphone at it speaker - it is exactly that that is the reason that you are getting psychological feedback or howl round and endless feedback loop and getting nothing coherent so just *Give it up.*
You and I only get lured into that pointless futile mumbo-jumbo identical to pointing your camera into its own monitor, because we are bored and have nothing better to do, and that Kuhn creature - who is plainly no fool, is exploiting that particular weakness on our part, so we are being willing suckers.
You may well find a genuine interest in discovering for yourself exactly what consciousness is, but the way to go about doing that is not by entirely circular pointless psychological feedback loops but rather to look at the etymology of the word conscious, which means "with_knowledge"
Now stop mucking about with consciousness but investigate the nature of knowledge which is what it is about so be a little more practical.
What exactly are you doing when you "know"? - Are you not directly immediately personally experiencing, and if not, what exactly *are* you doing?
If you stop using the silly word consciousness as if it were some sort of mysterious spooky thing and simply focused on what it actually is which is the process of knowing then you would probably profit a great deal more from your enquiry by being a little practical about these things.
If you look at it practically when you say my self, as you already recognise it follows as the night the day that you are making a distinction between the possessor and the possessed because you suppose - quite correctly that that is indeed the case, but look a little deeper what is possessing what?
All this dreaming nonsense about is consciousness biological is simply asking are lifelike things like like, which is circular and pouring from the empty into the void. Self-evidently any sort of awareness depends on organic sense facilities to do with the body which is a mechanism which has a number of differing functions.
Now look for yourself; exactly how many functions does your (what might be called) common presence or totality actually have? Plainly there is an instinctive function which deal with breathing heartbeat suggestion et cetera and there is associative function which deals with what you call thinking or dreaming (and there is no difference between the two), and how many other functions have you?
Perfectly good question: am I no more than the sum of all my functions or the functions of the mechanism that I appear to inhabit?
How would you go about addressing that question practically rather than by pouring from the empty into the void and getting yourself into an endless psychological feedback loop?
In plain terms that Khun fellow is an idle dreamer and specialises in pouring from the empty into the void, and you and I are suckers for getting lured into that nonsense.
Just don't do it, although it is great fun exchanging with you, since you are plainly highly intelligent rational and reasonable, but think about this: We are both dying or going through the process of falling having jumped from a very high place(been born).
Is there nothing more profitable that we can do while we are falling?
@@vhawk1951kl You could say the " self " is the highest principle, why? because without self-awareness ( the self ) we would not be conscious of anything to think about so consciousness is the substratum of the mind and since intelligence needs the data the senses send to the mind in order to function it rest on the mind so both the mind and intelligence are dependent on the self they ride along the stream of consciousness thus consciousness underlies them and is their substratum. It is the superglue of reality that binds everything together and that gives purpose to this physical body as being a tool to achieve a means to an end ( material sense gratification, liberation ) for the self so the body's value is in relation to the self not unto itself.
So everything is centered around the self, everything gravitates towards the self, everythings value is in relation to the self in this way the self is understood as the highest principle but it is not understood as an objective object. " truth " transcends matter so the truth of how consciousness is the substratum is something understood subjectively by the conscious self not by studying inert chemicals so knowledge,understanding and truth is the property of the conscious self and not matter.
Nothing can and be known to transcend consciousness since such an existence would depend on our consciousness for it to be known thus making it content within consciousness so consciousness is always in the absolute position. Being absolute existence it is eternal, being truth it is knowledge, and by being the impetus behind the desire to enjoy sense gratification it is the enjoying principle as well. All of these qualities of self gives it a tangible existence and is not an illusion as some people believe.
@@williamburts5495 And what do you - or I, learn from that?
Apparently the self is the highest principle is the self is nice principle is the self.
Now you see what happens if you point a television camera into own monitor - a psychological feedback loop: the self is the highest principle is the self is the highest principle is the self is lies principle is the self - you follow?
All jolly interesting stuff but it does not define either the self or consciousness - or anything?
Like me, sooner or later have to come to an understanding of the difference between a definition and a description.
You have come up with a description but not telling me - or anyone anything whatsoever about what it is describing - do not recognise that?
Is not everything (a universal) that falls to be understood understood “objectively”? - To what is it relevant that something is understood “objectively”?
Now turn your mind to this specific question: “can a mirror reflect itself?”
To ask that question is to answer it, is it not?
The practical question that you have to address is how to get out of that psychological feedback loop in which you find yourself?
Do you not see that all of that is simply going round and round in circles? - How do you get out of that?
Very often in England, it used to be the case that when a group of girls went to a dance, they would put their handbags (which I think the Americans call purses) on the floor and dance around their handbags, or certainly they did that when I was young.
What you have sent me is a psychological process of dancing round your handbag, or something analogous thereto, is it not?
For as long as there have been men ( human beings) I rather suppose that they have wondered what exactly they are, and, like you, have found themselves in an endless psychological feedback loop - which was inevitable, and a natural consequence of pointing a camera into its own monitor, which is exactly what you are trying to do is it not?
All jolly interesting, and no doubt jolly good fun, but utterly futile and utterly pointless, unless you can find a way out of that circle.
How you going to go about doing that - getting out of the circle?
There is a way to get out of it, but it is not my place to tell you - you have to work it out for yourself, and in order to do that you need to recognise the fact of the matter that you have embarked upon a process from which there is no escape, because it is a form of psychological feedback loop.
Do you recognise that?
It is the same with all “what_is” questions.
They are not and*cannot* be, satisfied by endless psychological feedback loops, so how do you get out of that?
I can no more help you with that then I can go to the lavatory for you, or fill a man with bread by looking at him.
Your difficulty - and mine, is that as a result of that nefarious invention of men that they call “education, you and I have been conditioned programmed, or as they say “educated” to suppose that every question necessarily has an answer
It does not.
If I may impertinently make a suggestion, the best way to get out of psychological feedback loops is to stop them dead in their tracks.
In my long life - very nearly a century, I have been searching to try to understand something, and I’m not going to suggest you that I understand anything at all, save perhaps one or two practicalities, and I have discovered a number of possible approaches having looked at both European and Asian philosophies, and asked many men (human beings) and you are not the first tell me that the self is ice principle is the self is the highest principle, exactly as another man once was told that hysteria is hysteria is hysteria.
All jolly interesting stuff, and all utterly futile and entirely circular. All pouring from the empty into the void.
There is a word for all that pouring from the empty into the void and endless psychological feedback loops, and I don’t think you need me to tell you what that word is, do you?
Now let us try some more “what_is” questions, leaving aside “what am?”:
What*is* intelligence?
What*is* the mind?
Before you proffer anything, I’m not interested in the dead bodies of questions, or answers which are the end of something, so I leave you with the following question:
“How to remain*silent* alive, alert, and attentive in front of a question -*without* killing it with answers?
Is that possible?
Only you can discover that, and how are you going to go about doing that?
Each and every show along with your guest should be required to give a definition of what consciousness is.
Agree, and we'll see how they'll fail misserably to be specific so real answer is... nobody knows!
..other than God all will fail misserably!
problem is they don't know, nobody can agree
@@marioescalona1640 There is no reason to bring God into the conversation. “Other than God” is a meaningless phrase.
I beg to differ. I think we all know conscious from unconscious entities well enough to move on with discussions. Only after the distinction has been understood at a basic level will a precise definition be possible.
Subash doesn't think computers can become conscious because that's what he believes, probably based on his upbringing. There is no coherent argument here.
It is the argument from personal incredulity. Fifty years ago it was thought that computers would never play good chess.
@@machintelligence 100%
You ignore his argument at 0:33 right at the start, why?
I Don’t think computers we’ll ever be able to have “consciousness”. They’ll probably “learn” information patters, collected data and follow its complex Algorithm.
@@grijzekijker he doesn't make an argument, he makes a statement, and that statement only applies to computers as they are being built at the present moment.
A brain retains millions or trillions of imprinted memories of every event of our lives. All of those lifetime memories go into creating our individual consciousness and are integral to conscious or unconscious thoughts. In my opinion no one could or would ever artificially replicate human consciousness.
Who told you that and why do you believe them?
@Sky Gardener I believe our brains are a vast complexity of neural pathways that is controlled by electrical impulses. I believe that implanted memories are unique to each individual and they form who we are. An individual ceases to exist when electric power is gone. Full stop.
If you agree that humans are made up of the same quarks and protons and so forth that make up everything else- and that physics is the same inside the human body as it is outside- then you agree that consciousness can be replicated- it's as simple as that. If you don't agree with that then, what are we made of? How are physics inside a human body any different from the physics outside of a human body? If you can't answer those questions- I wouldn't go around asserting consciousness can't be replicated because that opinion is based on nothing but your gut feelings. And gut feelings aren't easy to defend in a debate.
Who told you that and why do you believe them?
That's oversimplified and not true.
Consciousness is not just "a lot of memories".
In this case ChatGPT would be conscious.
8:41 Robert Kuhn sounding like he's in a large deserted building. SPOOKY! 😲
After only 75 years of development of digital systems we're giving up on being able to go further?
Nuh uh. BS, Subhash.
Quantum mechanics only in "sentient" beings? It's not an on-off condition. It's a range. And we can do a digital C. elegans eventually. Then a ladybug. Then....
Nope. I think he's biased.
Robert asked, " what is it about biology that differentiates it from non-biology? Answer: Knowledge and understanding or truth is the property of consciousness alone and not biology. Biology doesn't even know it's biology so" knowing" is what differentiates consciousness from matter or biology.
My reply is that quote by Kuhn would have been biology is driven by instinctual drives for survival and reproduction. And while you can artificially "program" drives in a non-biological machine, those "drives" would be mimicking biological drives and would not be part of the machines "conscious" .
A consciousness experiences information. A signal from the ear is not a sound until it's processed by computation and reaches consciousness as an experience that already means something. The wet brain computes so that consciousness knows something, it knows what a sound is at the time of experience.
All of you here are square heads who don't understand at all how the conscious process works.
The real material conscious process does not depend on the structure of the material aggregation that creates it.
It can be created by a complete artificial entity ( computer, any artificial "machine", etc ) with the exact same final functionality of a real material naturally evolved biological brain.
No difference whatsoever in the real and true conscious state, and no mimicking at all. Absolutely exactly functional finality.
@@mikel4879 Consciousness is also a love energy or potency and you can't compute that into any machine thus consciousness is beyond computation. The enjoyer principle just can't be duplicated and since that principle as well as the knower principle are the natural characteristics of the " self " the self is beyond being processed.
William Butt / Yes, you can.
It is done in a special way, after which the machine is on its own way, completely independent, with feelings and thoughts exactly like you, with consciousness exactly like any human, but much, much smarter.
I’m pretty surprised by this guy. The first guy i have heard in this age of AI obsessed society that actually stays down to earth and realistic. I’m so tired of listening to computer programmers who go on and on but don’t even understand what consciousness is it even attempt to understand it.
No more do you know what consciousness is or have any experience of what it is or might be, as you are about to demonstrate.
Consciousness is everywhere. All matter and anti-matter, even light, follows rules. Are they scared? Why all the discipline?
Best channel on UA-cam
Kak's line of reasoning isn't very cogent. There is much claims and opinions without much concrete reasons to substantiate his point of view.
Both his main objections are clearly invalid nowadays. Neural and deep learning systems are self organising learning systems, so that's irrelevant. We have quantum computers already, and in fact conventional computers can emulate quantum behaviour just fine, it's just a matter of solving the quantum mechanics equations. We've been able to do that discretely for the whole history of quantum mechanics. Ultimately the only argument has is of scale. So there's no fundamental objection left, it's just a hard engineering problem. Well yes. At the end of it we get the truth, we get why he keeps claiming fundamental objections he knows perfectly well, and even acknowledged are not fundamental and are not valid objections. Religion.
The universe is just a pure imagination of my grand mother's Consciousness !
No as if you can knocked out, you will lose your consciousness as your brain is switched off.
He is thinking that only ''self-aware'' organisms are conscious. However, lower organisms are conscious, they take in sensory information, compute and act, like humans.
Who told you that and why do you believe them?
@@vhawk1951kl Simple Definition 1: Sensory information streams into a conscious organism, the organism computes and acts. Definition 2: Sensory information streams into a ''self-aware'' conscious organism, which computes and acts. Why does an organism compute using sensory information? Answer: the only thing that is done with needed information is to compute, or communicate it. Example of computation: a plant takes in information about the sun's direction and grows toward the sun. Example of a self-aware consciousness: a puppy playing with siblings, old enough to distinguish his brother from environmental sources of information. Example of a non-self aware organism: an earthworm that only interacts with information due to its environment and when it mates it doesn't care if its mate is another worm. The simple high-level definitions don't say anything about the nature of consciousness in organisms. The speaker is influenced by eastern Vedantic and says that consciousness is not capable of referring to itself, it only experiences information.
Professor Kak isn't thinking broadly enough (in my limited view). He seems to base his parameters on what we currently know, not what we will surely come to know, if the species survives...
I agree 100%.
It's called promissory materialism : science will EVENTUALLY find all the answers instead of 'science will find it's methodological limits to knowledge and perceive indirectly the subtle reality beyond its reach - which is where we are getting to now (check what Stephen Hawking had to say on this ). The brain is a VR system for operating in material reality but is itself part of the VR while a subtle reality lies beyond, best attested to by Consciousness' irreducibility to neuronal function and photon experiments. Check out Donald Hoffmann ua-cam.com/video/UWHYThrfRYU/v-deo.html
He can only base his parameters on what we currently know otherwise the conversation is a waste or time. He cannot base a parameter on a fantasy that we might learn. For example I believe one day we will evolve into life forms that travel through time and space merely by wishing it. How do I back that up?
@@ssvsssjs the title doesn't limit the question to "today only". So one can theorise all they like. Computers have already beaten humans at specific tasks like Go. It's fairly logical that as computers get more powerful their abilities will improve. Hardly need to stretch the imagination for that. To suggest that only humans could possess "consciousness" is to suggest there is some magic or mystery to us. A far far more wishful and dreamt up claim IMHO.
@@ssvsssjs I can't disagree. But I can also listen to other thinkers (Chalmers, Hoffman) who DO seem to expand their possibilitizing beyond the known into the theoretical. I appreciate a variety of approaches, as I suspect do you!
The firm assumption from materialists has always been that Brain neurons give rise to consciousness.
I am not sure it's that simple. I think consciousness is far more profound, far more complex and far more unique, and possibly fundamental.
I do not believe brain neurons give rise to consciousness. Think about it: consciousness can create new things that have never existed before. Where did those things come from? I guess a materialist would say they were generated from the connections between the neurons. How would that even work? Do they magically appear or emerge? Where is the scientific evidence for that? (We have brain scans, we should be able to "see" it).
I think it is hilarious that if you ask most people about consciousness, they believe that there is almost like some sort of little man residing in their head (the man is consciousness) that drives this body like a giant puppet. Where do they even get this stuff from? When they explain it, I can't help but think- are you even serious with that? That sounds like some crazy science fiction to me.
@@kennethmalafy503 spot on.
Indeed. But Kak's ideas seem kind of fuzzy, in any scientific sense.
Pretty vague statement
Your level of education in NeuroBiology is what...?...
I feel the consciousness is no more special than say, magnetism. It's just a benign field until it interacts with sufficiently evolved biology. Think of it as CLOUD data storage. Radio waves would never have been discovered if we didn't build a 'brain' to interact with them , yet they have been around since shortly after expansion. Why do we accept 'instincts', complex behavior in the simplest of organisms ( bee hives , butterfly migration, birds that weave nests) as nature , but consciousness is magic?
Interesting theory. But what makes this so interesting is the awareness of the phemenon itself. It may very well be a benign artifact is a meaningless physical universe, but the act of investigating it seems to provide a sense of meaning and purpose, there evolving the consciousness to altered or higher states itself.
Why is any of this happening? We can’t begin to answer that part yet, for sure at least
The inteviewer is far smarter than the person he is interviewing.
Consciousness isn't biological so the question is moot.
I can sum up this video with this very famous quote: " A cat riding a bike is only as orange as a bright car on a gravel road".
This guy looks semi conscious! 😂😂😂😂🤣😂🤣
There you go! Right at the end he admitted that the western concepts of science cannot explain everything, especially what is consciousness! We need ideas/ sciences from the Indian subcontinent to explain that! 😁
I believe this is already happening. We have started a slow, very complex paradigm shift.
@@ArjunLSen meaning?
@@balaji-kartha 😂😂 did you need a translation of my long comment?
@@ArjunLSen yes please. What did you mean by "we have started a slow paradigm shift"? A paradigm shift of what, science? Because that was what I was talking about!
@@balaji-kartha since about 2000 science has been moving closer to a consciousness/ observer based understanding of the nature of reality in which the subject object divide is destroyed. This has resulted in an increased interest in Eastern mystical ideas among some of the top scientists. Physicalism is on its way out.
Carlo Rovelli warns against confusing a process with an entity. We should not refer to consciousness in the third person.
we don't know for sure that it is a process
@@chrisgarret3285 it must be, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.
@@ROForeverMan talk of God will take us into bottomless speculation because of the lack of proof of his (her, it's?) existence, or non-existence.
@@PERF0RMANCEMUSIC don't see how our consciousness being a process or an entity has anything to do with us having a conversation.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)
Alternatively, you could watch the video. It's interesting.
So he is saying there are two different quantum mechanics.... one for the brain and one for a rock...??
@@ROForeverMan
But he has phDs and is an expert in his field...of Physics...!
It’s getting difficult to know who to believe and who not to believe...!
One of the more interesting interviews. Here I can imagine other dimensions since in my experience, there is this silent witness, the Self, which remains untouched from even thoughts and emotions when in a more pure state. What we call physical or not may all be just one entity. The word "physical" may lose it's meaning. In a deeper sense, when arguments also lose significance, we just are.
Hey it's easy. If you think consciousness can be non-physical, just stop eating. You will find out real soon, and I won't have to read your stupid comments.
In Advaita, the observer and the observed (the contents) merge into a single entity according to Vedanta which was not mentioned by Robert to Subash in this episode. Perhaps in a follow up it ought to be discussed.
I've watched a lot of these and gotten to know Kuhn's style well and in fact he didn't like this guy. He generally hates people who theorize that the brain uses quantum processes. He's a neuroscientist with a very good understanding of the processes by which the brain works and from that he considers the postulation unscientific. He straight up at the end of this video tells this dude to his face he's saying nonsense.
1q
What you mean when you say "I can imagine other dimensions"?
Can you also imagine nine sided triangles and square circles?
only if you believe that consciousness is basically an illusion .. otherwise is a clear "no".
@@ROForeverMan some materialists think its... they deny everything they cant explain : free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion and so on ...
It's curious how hindu knowledge is around 10.000 years old but...
When westerns (europeans and north americans) talk about the Wheel, they say "when WE humans invented the wheel", or "when WE discovered Fire" or "When WE invented Writing" etc
When it's the Vedas, the inner knowledges, the so called "woo-woo", it's...
"They"
"They the Hindus believe that"
This guy's argument is about as logical as the stuff Deepak Chopra comes up with.
And Robert’s perspective, the scientific dogma, is based on philosophical assumptions, as well. And they’re just as crazy. His main point was about engineering to manipulate and control, but engineering has limitations too. It is not the supreme technique.
@@M_K171 How did you manage to type a whole paragraph without saying anything meaningful?
@@The_Original_Hybrid you seriously got nothing out of that? You don’t understand what anything I said implies? I guess I was engaging with a moron then. 🤷🏼♂️ My bad. I’ll exit.
@@ROForeverMan
"Deepak actually makes sense."
Well, that tells us something.
Biological consciousness seems inexorably linked to the systems of sensory experience feedback we have in our bodies.
I was thinking along the same lines... and I suspect that maintaining homeostasis (for survival) is a fundamental part at the bottom level too that can't just be ignored.
If matter is a form of energy and space is a form of energy then biology is a form of energy. If consciousness is a form of energy then it is like biology and matter and space. Its all energy. An original consciousness may have given birth to matter and space and other forms of energy as part of its own energy in a different form - including other conscious beings.
consciousness is not just energy, it is an information system which processes information and is aware of itself within an environment. You cant have a conscious beeing without structure and without environment..so there is no original consciousness.
@@JTHBS Structure can not exist without a preexisting potential for it to exist. A preexisting potential energy with structure. A consciousness.
Energy is a property of matter. Biology is a layer of matter. Consciousness is how matter is layered. The Cosmos has evolved into different layers of matter.
Straw man argument. Not all theories of consciousness say that awareness simply "emerges" from complexity. There are more functional theories of consciousness.
A lot of straw man arguments in his presentation, and a lot of "empty" statements. I have to say, I'm a little surprised that Kuhn included him on the series. Maybe it's just me projecting my own feelings, but Kuhn seems to me to be struggling to treat his ideas politely and respectfully.
@@ROForeverMan One explanation is the Attention Schema Theory. Read "Rethinking Consciousness" by Graziano.
Biological body is for sure only transitory moment in evolution. However Life will be realized in future...it is me the Life!
Evolution being the unfolding or or unrolling of what?
You understand that evolve means unroll?
If you use involved mean anything other than unroll, in what sense do you use it?
You are merely defining one meaningless term by reference to another utterly meaningless term
He begins by stating that a sufficient complexity of neural connections is not enough for emergent consciousness. He then states three quarters into the video that a sufficient number of neurons is what differentiates non conscious and conscious entities. What am I missing here? This seems to be self contradictory.
People are reluctant to think that data registers and operations on them can be like human consciousness.
@@ROForeverMan Pretty much what I was thinking.
To be conscious, you need to feel pain and pleasure. There may be some organisms that are conscious without being able to feel pain or pleasure, but I would suspect it’s somewhat “mechanical”.
I would go so far as to say if you don’t have any feelings then you cannot be conscious. A non-feeling organism (whether biological or a computer) is an unconscious machine.
So, when the windmills turn, the omnipotent AI will feel the wind blowing?
Consciousness is an ill defined term and your definition is far too narrow, which is probably why you're conscious it's weak. We are 'mechanical' and bio-mechanics is now an ageing academic subject, like QM.. I'd go on to say most people are far more robotic and remote-controlled than even the pig-ignorant, brainwashed sheeple-serfs of The Olde World.
--
I'd say if you're not conscious of this blatant fact your social and self-awareness is lacking so you prove that you are rather robotic. People-Programming is the biggest set of businesses in The West, don't forget.. Autism spectrum disorders are on the rise as the social conditioning against our INDIVIDUAL human nature has reached Leftist extremes.
--
The Human Consciousness goes from wild animal, to brainwashed robot-kid, to hopefully self and empathically aware adult (though empathy for political party enemies in our bi-partisan world is brainwashed out and language is redefined by the power de jour).. Finally, as senility and dementia set in, the broken robot returns and you regress back to an even more robotic state that childhood..
--
You can argue that acting on impulse is something robots don't do, but that's why I consider kids and demented old timers BROKEN biological robots.
--
The other side of the story is the fact a self-driving car is very sentient (aware of its surroundings enough to build mind-models with high level object differentiation, and Self Aware (more-so than humans due to far more specific self diagnostics capabilities). Makes realtime decisions based on realtime sensory input plus hard and soft-wired memory. It isn't alive as it can't replicate, but it fits all other definitions of 'Intelligent, CONSCIOUS Lifeform'.
"To be conscious, you need to feel pain and pleasure..."
A pain or a pleasure is of what a conscious being may from time to time be conscious.
I mean, pain and pleasure manifest as content in a being's conscious field.
The necessary precondition for a being to be conscious is
the ability of a being to maintain the concept of a self.
It is the modulation of the self by thoughts,
including those we call feelings,
that is what the word 'conscious' means.
I know this because it is my self that is conscious.
This knowing strikes me as self evident.
If you are a self as my self suspects,
then it should strike your self as self evident too.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL .. I almost completely agree bar 2 exceptions... A delusional / demented / hypnotic state is a gray area - broken consciousness... Also AIs that meet your criteria include just about every basic Smart Device, let alone self driving cars... SELF DIAGNOSTICS that work in real-time faster than we feel pain (or pleasure).. They really only 'feel pain' though, no pleasure.. Feeling Pain = sensing damage.
I wouldn't really say pain & pleasure is a requirement. If I turned off your nerves (numbing), then more complicatedly, injected chemicals/drugs in you where you're Deeply in a non-caring-about-anything state where emotionally you're not going to feel emotional pain or pleasure -- but still going about what you're doing & being aware -- wouldn't turn off consciousness.
I would say in order to feel pain & pleasure in the same sense we do, you'd need to be conscious. Consciousness is just a level of self-awareness where you are aware that you're self-aware.
Explaining consciousness using a homunculus is a cop out.
Definitely a circular explanation.
The way these computers generate language based on statistical probabilities could be how we do it as well. Does anyone have a better suggestion? These machines could very well become conscious of their own existence which is probably the key to defining consciousness.
There are two side of same coin. First guys not knows what is conscieness. He believes conscieness are Not picture World no explains with Science. In this ways it is his opinion without Science experience. Secound conscieness are unpredicted Not control out there real Words. How he beleived in conscieness if it unfit unpredicted reality ?
Can you give your answer in your own language? I cannot make sense of it.
@@ROForeverManokay, to be skipped then, this distractor from truth.
Consciousness, one of the biggest baffles for the physical! But, one of the best leads.
Metaphysics
Here on earth like it is in heaven.
Darkness (business) exists so that stars (light and warmth) have a place to shine in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
Stars like US don't exist to be sucked out of heaven by a giant a**hole in space called "greed" and its ignorance (hate).
Also, Love spent billions of years creating this paradise planet lifeboat so that her miraculous works of fine art called "life" have a beautiful place to "be".
Good (god) didn't spend so much time creating this paradise planet lifeboat to be depreciated, polluted and destroyed in a brief moment by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
We are sparks placed here for a brief moment to accumulate light and warmth (love)...so that we can become as bright of a star as we can be...shining in heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
Good (god) knows every star by name.
We accumulate light and warmth (love) by appreciating this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called "life" that inhabit it.
If we extinguish our light and warmth (love) with "greed" and its ignorance (hate)...we become the darkness and emptiness that surrounds the stars.
A very cold, dark, lonely, desolate place to be...for eternity.
That is meaningless gibberish and entirely circular - some sort of religious mumbo-jumbo
@@vhawk1951kl X-Files. For the hostile alien vampires (greed) to comprehend earthling human beings (love)...is like giant black holes in space trying to comprehend the stars (light and warmth) that they suck out of heaven (joy, beauty and harmony).
86 billion (or so) neurons in the brain...each neuron can form 1000 synapses... will take a computer 3 million years..to fully understand all the connections! good luck trying to guess where consciousness comes from !!
What do you think? where does it come from?
@@jamimb4056 ..
I don't know ???????????????looks like beyond human comprehension??
@@zerototalenergy150 I agree with you. No one knows. But what is in your mind? your imagination, your guess, when you think about conciousness. Where from it comes? There is an interview with Dr Sam Parnia I recomend you to watch it
ua-cam.com/video/NcCDlxFkAcY/v-deo.html
the interviewer has scope for growth. clearly some biases that make it cool to ask Subhash if he is talking nonsense. My question to the articulate interviewer is: would you be audacious enough to challenge Mr Penrose with the same disdain? if not, it’s a question for introspection for the interviewer.
R.e. “There is a difference in the quantum-mechanical behavior with regard to biological versus mechanical / electronic systems” - rediculous. Quantum mechanics underlies ALL physical systems that are composed of atoms. The Hameroff-Penrose microtubule theory of consciousness is not widely accepted by neuroscientists. People ask “What is consciousness?” and no one has come up with an answer, perhaps because it is the wrong question. Consciousness is not like an apple that you can bite into. It cannot be isolated or dissected apart to be understood. Consciousness is purely subjective, so the question should be be “How do I know that I am conscious?” The answer to this question should be answerable by scientific studies of the function of neural circuits in the brain. In particular, consciousness involves self-reflection, which requires memory, so neural correlates involving memory need to be studied. Memory is not well understood at the present time - particularly working and short-term memory.
Anyone notice how Dr. Kak says, "...different FROM" [2:14], while Dr. Kuhn (the host) says, "...differently THAN" [6:43]? Thank goodness the White House grammar protocol will still tell you that, although many people today say "different THAN", only "different FROM" is correct. Many Americans (and their worldwide imitators), even highly educated ones, find it kind of chic or hep or post-modern to use what they know to be the wrong or nonstandard forms of the language, e.g., "look out the window" (while, until Hemingway & Philip Roth, Americans were still looking out OF the window), or replying to "How are you?" with "I am GOOD" (instead of "I am fine/very well"), a blasphemous thing to say in the light of Mark 10:18; or the latest rage to willfully mispronounce the noun ROUTE ("root", as in trade routes, sea routes) as its quasi-homograph verb (to ROUT, to defeat completely, "ra-ut", as in "Napoleon's might was routed at Waterloo")... I, for one, as a humble Indian, will spontaneously lean towards the views of someone who uses the language better than one who doesn't. What about Americans?
There you have it Robert ….the answer you have been lucking for years…..Consciousness is not an emergent property IT IS THE FUNDAMENT OF EXISTANCE….and It only can be assimilated by biological organism!!!! It is that easy.
Conciousness is the emergence of complex patterns thar manifesting beyond the attributes of its smaller parts. Those parts which can contain most of the base data/memory.
You then have a living pattern created now whose primarily function is to interact with other complex patterns. This is secondary to the parts which it depends upon for its data.
A wise Eastern philosopher once described our experience as a short lived whirlpool that manifest within a flowing river.
But this is only part of the elephant seen by us blind men.
The pattern of Math exist regardless if there are any anchor points to be seen or that are known or that don't exist yet.
You need to ask how much of you is manifested as the whirlpool and how much of you is the river?
So if math can exist without substance, can there exist a complex living pattern state of principles of love that can survive the sea of eternity as well?
Determinism is either an infinit loaf of bread.
or
It is an internal wake of change with only few things being able to surf its surface.
Biology is the outcome of mathematical schematics because chemistry and physics are so. Hence consciousness is supra-biological.
Can't help but be sceptical of this guy. He ASSERTS that biology can do what a machine cannot. He thinks of machines like 1960s data processors churning out line printer reports. He completely ignores current-day AI, which is exploding with pattern recognition and image synthesis machinery that is doing things we did not even know to wish for a decade ago. Those are not traditional in that they do not 'run programs'. They learn from exposure to patterns. Ring a bell? It's what humans do.
Humans do calculations and perform Boolean logical functions occasionally as one of their mental functions
Computers do calculations and perform Boolean logical functions
Therefore when computers get more powerful they will be able to do everything humans can do mentally.
At the bumper-sticker level of thinking this arguments seems plausible but given a few moments of deeper thinking (stepping past the 6th grade Hollywood understanding of science and philosophy), a very thorny problem arises.
Attributes of consciousness
1-First person data (in the form of experiences and perceptions) mixed with third/person data arranged, and weighted into a data warehouse that can sort though, contextualize, serve up instant decisions from huge amounts of data (petabytes of raw data from a computational perspective).
2-large amounts of data are qualitative rather than quantitative. Hundreds of shades of redness of apples or being able to describe why you prefer one barolo wine over another.
3-Mental representation of the world (phenomenal structure) is incredibly complex data warehouse schema that can replace whole sections of false data based on new experiences or learning.
4- Has the state of intentionality
5 - Has the focus of aboutness (our ideas tend to be about mental objects).
6 - Contains sensory data that is qualitative
7- Private subjective in nature
8 - can think my thoughts are a function of a combination of all of the above but are not for the most part automatic like my breathing.
9 -consciousness seems unified over time. My self- concept is different than when I was a child or a teen or an early adult or middle-aged etc. My self is one self over time. My whole body, including my brain turn over new cells every few years but I maintain a unified self despite having 20 complete part replacements in my life.
10- Brain scientist will tell you, if they are honest, that there are only a few (mostly autonomic functions and math mathematics that map uniformly to areas of the brain. Most other functions are not uniform and actually change location from one moment to the next!
For more see:
ua-cam.com/video/BqHrpBPdtSI/v-deo.html
plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#DesQueWhaFeaCon
5:45 reminds me of when Terrance McKenna tried to explain how biological systems are different from nonbiological systems. Something along the lines of, if you cut a chair in half and come back in a few days, you'll find 2 halves of a chair but if you cut a giraffe in half, when you come back you will find something vastly different than the thing you left.
It's like biological systems exist to propagate different forms of aware experience. That is the chicken and egg problem here.
Did aware experience immerge from biological systems or did biological systems immerge from a kind of awareness expressing its experiences in ways we have not been able to apprehend?
Dr. Dan Dennett is doing great work in this area. I don't sit in his camp but I admire the work he's inspired.
If that "learning machine" could indeed be biologically developed. The point made here is everything is made from the same system and stuff, and we should be able to synthesize (our) biology. We could then "raise" those entities as humans are raised, guiding them as they experience "life": Petri dish clone super children which could store or be allowed to connect with the world's worth of data. It won't be tomorrow, but I think it will happen.
I’m pretty surprised by this guy... but in a negative sense. Saying machines can't have consciousness, because they are just executing instructions, is an incredibly outdated -- and frankly embarrassingly simplistic -- view.
Also, we will never be able to prove consciousness in machines, as we can't prove it in ourselves.
No computer ever built comes close to the number of connections in the human brain. If if one did, it would only be an extention of our own minds. Our braìns are so complex they create phantoms-- we imagine ourselves to be unique "selves" locked inside separate skulls, when we are actually expressions of a species-wide, biosphere-wide and cosmic phenomenon. We aren't put in this world, we come out of it as waves emerge from the ocean.
Awaken life's smartphone reaction to emotional, regarding GOD in everything computers of blinds life's nonsense computers compare to awaken life's computers or smartphone reaction to emotional of users, as told before awaken life's 😇 everything alive even machine or chairs or srounding all have same mood as the awaken life's truth ok
Maybe it means something to postulate that there is a STATE of a material object (brain) that is non-physical. It is merely silly. That’s like saying there is an aspect of my car’s speed that is non-physical.
Whenever the cops pull me over that is what I say. They haven’t fallen for it yet. Etc.
He didn’t explain anything. He didn’t properly answer any of the questions put to him except for the last one, which revealed that he believes in something mystic. Sadly it was a waste of several minutes of my life.
Organisms are not mechanisms. Mechanisms are invariably designed by conscious designers. All the parts of a mechanism are assembled fully finished and fully functional by conscious assemblers or by robots designed, built and programmed by conscious designers and assemblers. Mechanisms know no death since all the parts making up a mechanism can theoretically be replaced ad infinitum. Consciousness is precisely what mechanisms lack.
Meanwhile. organisms evolve either out of an unconscious process, a supra-conscious process, or both. All the parts that make up an organism are never assembled: they grow to maturity, decay and die together in a symbiotic relationship from beginning to end. The parts making up an organism cannot be replaced ad infinitum so death is the inevitable fate of any organism. Comparing organisms to mechanisms is a fundamental mistake.
I can imagine a non biological machine that is designed to have senses like biological machines and to have hard wired drives analogous to our drives of self preservation and procreation along with means to control interaction with the world such as mobility and hands. Such a machine will learn just like babies learn and as a result conscious awareness
will emerge in that machine just as it emerges in us. If the artificial brain is limited, the machine would be conscious similar to lower animals but if the artificial brain is as extensive as ours is, then consciousness similar to ours will emerge.
@@ROForeverMan
"Biology is not a machine."
And where did David Greenstein, or others, assert that biology is a machine?
If, on the other hand you are making that assertion, on what basis?
Haha. Another assumption that machines will have Human like consciousness someday. Bull crap
A machine smarter than us could give us new laws of physics.
We might be able to go faster than light......
or figure out how to build a Quark bomb.
Pick one.
We're just biological machines, similar to robots and the consciousness is the awareness that perceives the activity. We're asking all the wrong questions.
Simple, easy most intuitive answer. No. No brain (physical) no consciousness.
I agree. The answer to this topic is No. While we may not have a full understanding of what consciousness is, machines will never have it. Even if they make an autonomous cyborg that looks just like a human, it will just be a computer program with a set of instructions mimicking the processes of a human.
And where is your proof that no brain = no consciousness? Elaborate please...
I must disagree with your statement that no brain = no consciousness because as we know from various studies, when people have cardiac arrest or are in coma or indeed clinically dead, people often return with a description of feeling more alive and more lucid and more alert and often outside of their body and often have travelled to further dimensions. I'd suggest looking up the studies of Dr Pim Van Lommel and his book Consciousness Beyond Life.
ua-cam.com/video/2OGtxV0a6f8/v-deo.html
that is by far the most complex answer really... the simplest answer would be that any complex enough computational machine achieves consciousness...
Its very simple, without understanding what intelligence is, not even having an idea of what it COULD be, it makes no sense to discuss these topics... empty words in the wind...
his analysis seems very limited and conclusions loosely founded
“computers work with logic instructions” logical instructions only mean a choice of rules that give good consistency and they rely on the laws of nature to work. you can emulate anyway neurons that work similarly to real ones or even design chips that operate like neurons and they have already demonstrated similar to humans way of solving problems. of course there is a lot of work to be done but it’s promising
Does an ant posses self-awareness? A dog does, and an ape does, but to a lesser extent than a human does simply because of the number of neurons that are able to react to the reaction of other neurons, creating a sort of hall of mirrors where reactions echo and multiply. Consciousness develops by increments, other species are incrementally less aware than us, a baby growing into an adult attains personhood gradually-- and it works in reverse as well, a person can become less aware due to drugs, disease or injury
Machines need programming for consciousness? Is human brain / mind programmed by quantum fields, carbon, or something else?
The questions were unbelievably stupid. They were pre supposed like they usually are. Who is the target audience of this show? Prayer U?
Is it not begging the question that consciousness is physical and thus it can be manipulated by engineers? The engineers' brains themselves are biological. And to say that it can be so is that it is the same biological process which manipulates.
No idea how people can think an algorithm could be conscious. Scientists don't even know what makes us conscious or where it comes from.
Where is the border between biology and not biology, exactly? Not explained or defined in words and language but so that one can witness the border in a microscope.
Yikes! his arguments are so lame it makes me believe that absolutely machines can have consciousness. Maybe he wants to avoid questions and delays about going further in his own research.
Disappointing. The machine-consciousness is by far the lesser issue. The more important issue is whether awareness can reach beyond the body, and whether awareness can exist independently of a body. Answer those questions (as is readily practicable) and you begin to appreciate what a human is and the nature of consciousness.
Speak of machine consciousness is identical to speaking of a mirror reflecting itself is it not?
Can a mirror reflect itself - address that question.
It's quite funny to see that consciousness is discussing how consciousness can be created artificially!! Can anything "create" its own being?
Since we have ZERO comprehension of what consciousness is, whatever answer he gives past "I have no idea" is theoretical nonsense.
Your body is just a tool, a biological machine, used by the conscious self to achieve a means to an end ( sense gratification , liberation ) being so it's value is in relation to the conscious self not unto itself. So yes, consciousness is non-biological'
This guy just gave Robert a vedanta lesson that I hope he can grasp.
nothing you said is a fact
@@chrisgarret3285 could a insentient machine
" know " what a fact is?
@@williamburts5495 I'm gonna presume we are both sentient yet we disagree over what a "fact" is. There are those that think for example, that there are 52 genders, or that the Earth is 6 million years old. Those people (opposite spectrums I suppose) will both tell you that those are facts based on the evidence they perceive. My point being is that even conscious minds can't agree on "facts".
@@chrisgarret3285 Not all conscious minds can agree on the facts but only a conscious mind or self can perceive what a fact is. Insentient biology or matter can't do that and that is the difference between consciousness and insentience " truth " is the property of consciousness alone.
You are made up of the same stuff as everything in the Universe. How is it that you're conscious and a rock isn't? ...
..."other [simple] forms which should be at the base of consciousness"...
he is so Wrong, we may be biological. but we are also programed by sociality the same way. we follow strict rules also
It's physical therefore we can control it? Beyond what we know is physical.
experience itself will never be able to see itself as an object.
I am still processing this.....
After first minute I stopped watching - that logical-nonlogical argument worked decades ago.
Can I send a message to myself from future?
Daniel Ray Waters Hazelton Ortiz
Consciousness IS its content! Otherwise what is it? An empty “vessel”?…
Isn't this more of an argument about whether biology is independent of quantum reality?
Can there be a more ridiculous question ? Consciousness is nothing special.
As we don’t yet have much of a handle on the underlying nature and source of consciousness, it seems silly to posit where consciousness may or may not arise. For all we know, a star could indeed be a conscious entity.
Consciousness arises from complex neural networks which evolved over billions of years. The sun is in constant fluid motion and cannot support structures of neural networks. Therefore, it cannot be conscious. Of coarse, if you believe in spirits, then you are prone to believing in most anything.
@@ROForeverMan I wondered when god would come into it.
You are a god, and you are part of God. While the conception or apprehension of God is somewhat self abrogating, I still say that the conception of God as "the entire integration or summum of all mind, of all that is, was, and will be", is the indisputably better conception of God, than that which identifies God with any particular individual human consciousness.
Ontology, fundamentally, "I am" . And there is also "that which exists, although it is other than that which I am", that is, there is "that which (is, but which) I am not".
Through the informational lens, each of our minds are like informational processes, abstractly like "sub-routines" within a much larger overarching computation.
To the extent that we have free will, we are each co-authors and co-creators of the future and reality, and in this sense, we are like gods, who can shape and mold the physical world via our minds (which are dependent of the physical world for their physical manifestation, are fundamentally informational and immaterial, much as a mathematical algorithm is essentially immaterial, but must find it physical manifestation in the material world.) But individuals perceptions and wills are not necessarily entitely compatible, and the evolution of future reality depends on a "smoothing" or "integration" of all the disparate "potentialities", and the aggregate "mind", is the formal candidate for (or "first conception of") God. Other conceptions of God may of course exist, but the general "consensus" is that, at least amoung those that adopt/embrace such alternate conceptions, those conceptions should be at least, equally compelling.
BTW, there is a bit of a "philosophical puzzle" or "mystery" surrounding the question of "how can the immaterial influence the material?", or how can "information" actually become "imprinted" on the physical "substrate"?
I guess it should come as no surprise to anyone that such "mysteries" can also be largely ellucidated and made understandable, although, I don't think I could do so here, without making this already, doubtless, overly long comment/reply much longer.
I really only wanted to help clarify a point on which I felt, that your statement was somewhat misleading. Please do not take this "correction" as criticism or condescending. I mean to offer it only in a helpful, friendly way, as one lowly human "seeker of the ineffable truth" to another. Cheers and All the Best (my brothers and sisters)
@@ROForeverMan I don't agree.
@@ROForeverMan Then God has the ultimate case of multiple personality disorder
With all due respect this interviewee needs to study some more neuroscience first.
As Roger Penrose has stated, "consciousness is not a computation." Consciousness is fundamental to reality. Consciousness is primary. Therefore, consciousness is not an emergent property of either biological or non-biological entities, including machines, once they reach a certain level of complexity. Biological and non-biological entities are objects WITHIN consciousness.
Consciousness exists in brain, not outside brain. Now, tell us what percent of the brain we use.
If it is not biological, where does it go when anesthesia is applied?
the elephant in the room is "prior information"
both see it but one denies he sees it
Good topic for discussion, seems he had something there when he started down the path of saying biological systems were self engineered.
We have self organising systems that learn without being programmed right now, neural computer systems. We've had genetic algorithms for many decades. Surely he must know this, so why is he saying these things?
@@simonhibbs887 Cognitive dissonance. He has a belief and yet even he knows it doesn't add up but he cant admit it to himself.
@@ROForeverMan Then please explain why my comment is incorrect, because it seems to me all the things he says computers are fundamentally incapable of are all things they have demonstrated they can do very well. In fact when Kuhn challenges him on that fact, he says it's a matter of scale. So, not a fundamental issue at all.
@@ROForeverMan I recommend "Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting" by Daniel Dennett, and "I am a strange loop" by Douglass Hofstadter.
@@ROForeverMan
"You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't know anything neither about biology nor about computer science."
Pot meet Kettle. Kettle meet Pot.
The opposite scenario is when sleep walkers commit complicated crimes and are let off because they were proved not to have been conscious. In other words a thinking, functional biological entity that's _not_ conscious, effectively a naturally created biological robot. If we could pinpoint the process that causes them to wake up we'll have isolated consciousness.
Back to this question - a baby is put together atom by atom in the womb and preprogrammed with basic instructions how to survive after birth by analyzing the world and making autonomous decisions so as Robert asks why can't all that be done artificially? Biological material is made naturally out of dead atoms. 'Non-Biological' just means some other arrangement made by humans so again as Robert is saying it's a moot point whether we use biological material or not, the question is whether we can create consciousness using it.
When we've succeeded we can then see if we can do the same with materials that are easier to produce to get non-biological consciousness.
Who told you that anyone has committed "a complicated crime" while sleepwalking, and why do you believe them?
Could that person identify anyone in particular that had committed such a crime in his sleep?
I think you are imagining things - you can only be imagining things
@@vhawk1951kl Just anecdotal evidence from research, a better known example is reports of children a hundred or so years ago in woolen mills operating complex machinery whilst asleep.
The point I'm making is that people are reportedly able to perform complex tasks beyond just thrashing about whilst asleep that require dexterity and at least some rudimentary thought and judgement, acting as a thinking biological machine that could be 3D printed if we knew enough.
@@frankyjayhay Research being searching again for what?-For what were you searching and how?
When did you lose it and where?
In short:Gossip or hearsay from witnesses that you cannot cross-examine. Only a cretin or imbecile child would even entertain evidence from a source it could nor cross-examine for accuracy truthfulness and absence of bias.
@@vhawk1951kl To your perfectly valid comment that seems to have disappeared while I was typing:
I mentioned crime because the case would have been fully and impartially examined by experts. However we routinely judge evidence from sources we can't personally examine according to our own sense of what's plausible which is why we have these discussions.
To this comment: We extensively research a tricky subject such as this one in order to get closer to the truth as per the title of this series.
can non biological entities fly...i thought so.
Crazy that people think robots will become human-esque (sentient etc)....when clearly humans will become robots...some people have it all back to front!
Why not ask, can a snake venom be non- biological? it's a natural process of existence like every existing species has its specialized weapon given by nature.
I agree with him that independent AI will never be able to draw their own conclusions like a humans conscious mind.
There might be some other materials that can act like biological self instructions, but it's not yet found.
@@ROForeverMan you're confused
I believe we have consciousness all wrong.
I don't agree with Subhash's pov. First there was a chemical soup from which humans evolved. Consciousness has to be evolutionary and emergent because that's how humans came to be.
@@heinmolenaar6750 At first there was no consciousness. But then our brains grew larger and eventually we became conscious.
So somewhere along the evolutionary path, consciousness arose in our brains due to increasing complexity. That means computers can become conscious too. Because we started from inert matter as well.
I’m inevitably disappointed when I watch this kind of video. No one ever seems to know the answer. Some things may just be unknowable.
* unknowable today
There I fixed it for ya
i think it is only a matter of time before machines gain consciousness. or at least they get to a point in which we can't tell that they aren't conscious. the difficulty arises bc we dont even know what consciousness is, we've been trying since at least the presocratics in the west to try to find and explain what consciousness is, and all over the world we've been trying. and we simply don't know. but to the extent that we base our understanding on actions and behavior computers will be conscious.