Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AUFunmacy OP t1_j6nqi4t wrote

Reply to comment by muzukashidesuyo in The Conscious AI Conundrum: Exploring the Possibility of Artificial Self-Awareness by AUFunmacy

As I am studying neuroscience in medical school I feel I am semi-qualified to answer this.

I don't think we are any more than the electric and chemical signals in our brains, simply because there isn't anything else that we can point at yet. The fundamental fact is that all human processes, what you could call the entirety of human physiology acts via the comunication between neurons in the nervous system, which is pretty well understood.

You would be dead the very moment (1 planck second) after your neurons stopped conducting - because at that point everything stops, literally everything.

10

littlebitsofspider t1_j6nukkl wrote

The roboticist Pentti Haikonen has put forth the idea that natural (and by extension) artificial consciousness hinges on qualia, and that we won't develop said artificial consciousness until we can implement qualia-centric hardware of sufficient complexity. Considering that human wetware functions on a similar premise, i.e. that our conscious existence depends on inter-neural communication that is independent of objectivity, would you think this theory holds water?

3

JustAPerspective t1_j6paw7w wrote

>I don't think we are any more than the electric and chemical signals in our brains, simply because there isn't anything else that we can point at yet.

Pragmatic.

The limitation of the practice is that it presumes anything humans haven't discovered yet isn't relevant... while simultaneously refusing to allow for what people haven't learned.

Yet science is merely observation of what is - any incomplete observation will be suspect in its conclusions due to the variables not yet grasped.

That the atoms comprising your system shift by 98% annually indicates that - at some level - what makes up "you" is not physical.

Which leaves a lot of room for learning.

1

AUFunmacy OP t1_j6peiqq wrote

I’m so confused, do you know what “pragmatic” means? Because it just seems like you compliment my way of thinking and then say that I am ignorant and so are the rest of people who learn neuroscience and god forbid - choose to believe it.

No idea what you mean by atoms shifting 98% that’s just complete nonsense you wrote to make yourself seem more credible. At least give context to the things you say or provide some evidence? Either would be great.

1