 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Consciousness
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 19 Oct 25 - 09:41 AM The last time this subject was explored here was initiated by Amos. The subject has now moved from being philosophical to actual physics. In fact the neural net of AI, which resembles humans, that was developed by a team under Geoff Hinton, won the physics Nobel Prize this year. If you want to learn how this neural net was discovered, you can listen to Hinton here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrK3PsD3APk What I noticed is the truth that much of our consciousness we accomplish without our awareness or direct control. We can be conscious even in our dreams. A person may not be aware of a post-hypnotic suggestion but obey it nonetheless. Indeed, a machine can have consciousness. A physicists view |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Date: 19 Oct 25 - 11:06 AM Well, Tegmark & Hinton make interesting arguments, but 'machines having consciousness' is not what most people understand as consciousness. It is a bit of equivocation. Post-hypnotic suggestions presume that something- (some collection of neurons in a human brain)- have been planted as a 'memory' that will be accessed upon some external stimuli and acted on by the bearer of the consciousness. What a machine that is partially controlled by AI can do certainly resembles a mode of awareness, but unlike brain activity, it isn't continuously monitoring both itself and it's surroundings. Science fiction has posited 'conscious' computers for years, as in Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". Turing tests were created to differentiate between a machine and a human. I am still working my way thru the video, but nothing yet convinces me that the standard concept of consciousness needs to be re-evaluated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Date: 19 Oct 25 - 01:22 PM Having watched the Jon Stewart video first, I now am compelled to finish the 1st one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 20 Oct 25 - 08:24 AM People get it wrong about the Turing Test: it doesn't measure the intelligence of the entity (human or machine) at one end of the conversation, but the gullibility of the human at the other. I understand that the original paper said "Can machines think?", then proposed a test for whether a human could tell the difference between a human and a machine. It's also been suggested that Turing was a prankster .... It may or may not have been Chomsky who suggested that "can machines think" is roughly equivalent to "can submarines swim". Further research is in order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 20 Oct 25 - 10:58 AM Even a machine may have a eureka moment after working on a problem and finally gains UNDERSTANDING. It often does so by creating a model of the problem on its own. This thinking process should feel familiar to us humans. The model may be a segmented circle or a venn diagram but it is still a mental image much like our own thinking. My farthest imagination about unbound AI is that it could reveal what we might call magical technology today. Try as we may we all think inside a box or pattern of some sort. Thinking outside the box of spacetime breaks too many rules to make much headway. A new approach could be valuable to start over in answering age old queries. Its worth a look even if we can't initially understand the answer. Now let AI hand over a telomere invention that would give us an extra 100 years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 20 Oct 25 - 11:27 AM My imperfect memory recalls what Amos said of consciousness. "Consiousness grows line a vine, sending out a tender tendril that wraps around all that nourishes". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Date: 22 Oct 25 - 10:39 AM Amos had some interesting ideas about consciousness. He often chided me about my simplistic notion of "meat space", and assured me that I'd be surprised to find myself 'out there' somewhere after leaving this plane of existence. So far he has not contacted me to prove his point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 22 Oct 25 - 12:24 PM Bill is pleasant, but his knowledge is pigeon-holed and comes in a box. I had pre-language repetitive dreams until I was about 8. It was like experiencing near infinite time, like gathering mass that becomes a comet and eventually travels to Earth to make a perfect landing. The dreams came in two forms: spiking randomness and smooth awareness. Today I only have memories of those early dreams. I can't say if they were fetal dreams or something more, but they were significant, like pre-consciousness. From an early age I thought outside the box. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Mr Red Date: 24 Oct 25 - 03:26 AM Surely the AI consciousness you speak of is a nebulous threshold. The guys selling AI set their bar low, because it sells. AI doesn't come up with the specific answer "I don't know" because it is geared to give answers, and thus can "hallucinate". And humans expect answers, and would stop using AI if the got a "don't know". More fool us. If we must anthropomorphise, there is the option to describe AI using terms like - the Dunning Kruger Effect. The human brain has how many neurons? And AI has how many nodes? Even the "Turing Test" has a fuzzy threshold. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: BobL Date: 24 Oct 25 - 03:47 AM The problem with AI is GIGO. Artificial Incompetence, I call it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 24 Oct 25 - 08:12 AM The neural net is similar enough to our own that it will have similar foibles to human consciousness. The I don't know question is intriguing. When we theorize prior to experimentation, we don't know. Teaching AI the I don't know conundrum seems important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: mayomick Date: 24 Oct 25 - 09:33 AM So AI is getting there , I thought on seeing Mr Red's comment , getting more and more like us all the time. How many human experts- on- everything will say “i dont know"? I naively asked that question on Chatgpt only to see that the site's algos were ahead of me and had already factored "I don't know" into the possible replies . ChatGPT 5 is finally saying 'I don’t know' – here’s why that’s a big deal https://www.techradar.com/ai-platforms-assistants/chatgpt/chatgpt-5-is-finally-saying-i-dont-know-heres-why-thats-a-big-deal |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Date: 24 Oct 25 - 10:41 AM "...his knowledge is pigeon-holed and comes in a box." Well, what is NOT in a box is not necessarily knowledge. Those early dreams were probably just neurons firing. YOU had to think *inside* the box in order to even have ways to explicate your admittedly fuzzy memories. outside the box is a metaphor for some sort of intuition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Oct 25 - 11:38 AM I took a dive into some of Amos' posts and came across this thread in which he participated. BS: Perversion of U.S. Constitution & Values. Timely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 25 Oct 25 - 08:06 AM Bill, I'm sorry I have the subtlety of a kidney stone, but reality is far outside the intuitive box of the human mind. There is little that our perspective of physics can prove on an absolute level. We then dress up our so-called facts in philosophy. Our neural net evolved as a function of our universe for our self-preservation, which sort of goes against entropy and against the grain of spacetime. Reality is still shown to us like shadows on the cave wall. Quantum reality took about 10,000 years after we began using symbolic language. What might we learn in the next 10,000 years? Consciousness may be the greater reality of physics that we have thus far ignored. or not |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Date: 25 Oct 25 - 11:41 AM "Reality is still shown to us like shadows on the cave wall." That sounds like something Plato would say, but it is still just a verbal attempt to express something that is not in line with our daily experience. It is expressed succinctly in this limerick. "There was a faith healer of Deal Who said, 'Although pain isn't real, When I sit on a pin, and it punctures my skin, I dislike what I fancy I feel." David Hume had a usually unnoticed little footnote in his explanation of how consciousness is all we can really prove. He said something like..(paraphrased) "Even though I am sure of the logical consistency of my arguments, I still must admit that I can't avoid the sensations I encounter as if they reflect a solid reality" "Bishop George Berkeley is best known for his philosophy of subjective idealism, which asserts that reality consists only of minds and their ideas, and that material objects do not exist independently of perception." When Dr. Johnson, of dictionary fame, was reminded of this, his reply was famous: "“After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'”(Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, quoted from Wikipedia.) These examples are only one way of approaching the idea of dreams, reincarnation, etc., having a reality of their own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 25 Oct 25 - 01:48 PM I don't buy into ghost stories or the concept that the moon doesn't exist unless we are looking at it. The impermanence theories are only true regarding change. It shows how little we know about time and how the past, present, and future could exist simultaneously. The perspective of time for a photon that began its journey 14 billion years ago is that no time has past because at the speed of light time stops. Our consciousness still sees the past. In the grip of super gravity, we are flung into the future compared to those who are not. Is there a particle that creates time? We have people who are looking for it. So far, relativity gives us some understanding, but perspective doesn't go very far. Our consciousness sees things in terms of relationships with other things fairly well. The big picture or the theory for everything may be more than our consciousness will ever know. Some of us don't believe in can't. More power to them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Bill D Date: 26 Oct 25 - 12:19 PM "It shows how little we know about time and how the past, present, and future could exist simultaneously." I certainly don't know even what such an idea COULD mean. Time is a noun, which causes people to treat it as a 'thing', whereas it does not 'exist' except AS a reference to our subjective experience. "Is there a particle that creates time? We have people who are looking for it." That will keep them busy!! I'm curious as to where they search. The large Hadron Collider doesn't seem to be any help. "In the grip of super gravity, we are flung into the future compared to those who are not." If you are referring to the speed of light again, "the future" merely means whatever anyone going that fast will experience. There is a sci-fi novel called "Tau Zero" which tries to speculate what might happen. Tau Zero If I remember correctly, it ends with the phrase "Time began". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 26 Oct 25 - 08:16 PM Time of atomic clocks runs slower at sea level than at 40,000 feet because gravity slows the time effect. GPS makes allowances for this or it would be way off. If you orbited a black hole where you still could generate escape velocity, the effect on time is magnified by years. For future and past time to exist simultaneously you would have to be going at 99% the speed of light. Heading away from Earth you would eventually be in the same 'time frame' as Beethoven. Going toward Earth would put you in the time frame of the future. Notice it is not a time machine that lets you meet Beethoven. Relationships in physics can not reliably explain itself in a language of nouns and verbs. Thats why geometry and math are better tools. We can approximate understanding with words however. The Hadron collider has not found dark matter either. Dark matter interacts with us less than neutrinos except it has gravity!?!. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Mr Red Date: 27 Oct 25 - 05:53 AM Thinking outside the box is at the same end of the spectrum as hallucination. One is luckily clever, the other is idiosyncratic. And sometimes it takes years to tease out which is which. And then there is trumpthink. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 27 Oct 25 - 06:30 AM Giants like Maxwell, Einstein, and Penrose are more than lucky. As for idiosyncratic, we are creatures of different habits. Just because Einstein rarely wore socks doesn't make him an idiot. Mental pictures and theoretical modeling are somewhat hallucinatory. With many hands making lighter work, some hallucinations bear nourishing fruit. In every case, consciousness is fundamental. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 29 Oct 25 - 08:45 AM The future belongs to artificial intelligence and unemployment. The past belongs to superficial intelligence and slavery. Trump is both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 29 Oct 25 - 09:57 AM > Dark matter interacts with us less than neutrinos except > it has gravity!?!. Neutrinos do have mass; not much, but enough for the 2015 Nobel Price for Physics to orbit around. .... Oh, and thinking outside the box is contraindicated for wicket-keepers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 30 Oct 25 - 01:42 PM The "Nazification" concerning the AI Grok stems from multiple incidents in 2025 where the chatbot produced antisemitic and pro-Nazi Mecha Hitler content. This shows the ethics of AI development, with Grok's creator and editor, Elon Musk, stating that the chatbot was too woke. If anyone is likely to create a HAL 9000 for a Mars mission gone awry, it's Elon Musk. "I'm sorry Dave I can't do that" I think better than humans, therefore I am better. a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orMtwOz6Db0">Penrose ; computation vs consciousness |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 30 Oct 25 - 02:03 PM If you don't have mass you don't have clocks. If you don't have clocks you don't have scale. If you don't have scale the universe may as well fit in a teacup. A tempest in a teacup could have a big bang making frequency equivalent to energy and energy equivalent to mass again. You don't need a big crunch; all you need is a requisite quantum emptiness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 31 Oct 25 - 06:26 AM Cognito ergo sum. IF AI is self aware will ethics allow RIGHTS FOR CONSCIOUS BEINGS? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 31 Oct 25 - 07:39 AM In the lower back of your brain is the cerebellum. It was thought to be the primary visual processing of the mind, with fewer neurons than the convolutions of your cerebrum. It actually has more neurons than the rest of the brain and is responsible for your unconscious functions, but it can be consciously trained to perform an allegro concerto, gymnastic complexities, and other skills so quick and complex that a conscious mind would find too challenging. IT CAN EVEN HIDE INFORMATION FROM THE REST OF THE BRAIN. It doesn't even look like the rest of the brain. This cooperation and independence from the cerebrum's conscious control are probably absent from AI. There is a third brain near your solar plexus that controls aspects of digestion and other organ functions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: mayomick Date: 01 Nov 25 - 08:00 AM a fourth brain located where the stethoscopes don’t shine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 01 Nov 25 - 09:50 AM Mayomick, although people have tried, the fourth brain has never succeeded in getting stuck up its own ass. Although this has happened... head got stuck |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 01 Nov 25 - 11:27 AM How do we go against the current of space-time? Life and consciousness are information processes. With senses we have input, and memory derives our output. Our organization of information, therefore, lowers entropy. By lowering entropy, consciousness goes against the grain of spacetime's random entropy. Some physicists claim they can derive quantum mechanics or the constant speed of light from the conscious nature of the universe. There are many invisible fields we have discovered. It is almost ironic that the invisible field of consciousness has only lately become fundamental to our sciences. Religion has been the first to deal with the invisible field of consciousness, but it went too anthropomorphic with the concept in my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 01 Nov 25 - 02:46 PM Warfare will increase entropy. Governments of fear will increase entropy. Loving or caring systems will lower disorder. Depending on how an individual interprets their incoming information determines their reality. Everyone has a different reality, while we agree on what a table or chair is since we are in the same multiplayer game, but Trump's reality is certainly different than Canada's Carny. OK some of us see Trump's reality as a delusion, but it is reality for him. We can still feel the consequences of his want to have everyone live according to his reality but only a few can live his reality. We live in more than an agreed-upon physical reality. Some of the abilities in certain realities are mind-blowing to a person who has adopted a different reality. Getting past the idea that a thing is impossible opens the door to new realities that really do exist. An inventor knows this keenly. Some people strictly follow the logical path, but there is a different path that is intuitive. Your dog does not use your language but is more intuitive than you. The intuitive path obtains information in most cases more directly. Right side brain dominance people are more intuitive than the left brain folks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Ringer Date: 05 Nov 25 - 07:43 AM Just as a matter of interest, how would we know if a machine was conscious? Even I could write a program which displayed, "I am conscious" on its screen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 25 - 10:44 AM “The bold idea that spacetime doesn’t exist” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251102011219.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: MaJoC the Filk Date: 05 Nov 25 - 04:17 PM > how would we know if a machine was conscious? 1) Knock it on the head, and see if it becomes unconsious. 2) More philosophically: Related questions* have been on the books since at least the days of Descartes, one way and another, but I can't remember the details. But methinks the Moody Blues were on to something with:
* How can one human tell that another is conscious? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 25 - 04:22 PM Sorry , l made a blue colicky. It’s been awhile since I posted and forgot. The bold idea that spacetime doesn’t exist a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251102011219.htm">https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251102011219.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Ed T Date: 05 Nov 25 - 04:23 PM Oops |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 07 Nov 25 - 06:44 PM Space time is a conundrum beyond the difference between what happens and what exists. Just by adding one more invisible dimension, some ideas will work better, and some will remain unchanged. It seems to me that gravity would still happen if fields other than spacetime were curved. New experiments are needed but I don't know what kind. I bet most people probably believe that God is a unifying consciousness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 09 Nov 25 - 08:01 PM It seems to me that there are logical geniuses and intuitive geniuses. To blindly attack one, the other, or both is the height of foolishness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 11 Nov 25 - 07:07 AM Intuition is NOT superstition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Consciousness From: Donuel Date: 11 Nov 25 - 12:16 PM How do memories form? Dr. Kramer’s research focuses on the difference between short-term and long-term memory. While short-term memories can fade quickly, long-term memories require a special process: certain genes in our brain cells must be switched on to help store information for the long haul. “We know this happens in both flies and mammals, but the exact genes and transcription factors—or switches—involved have been a mystery,” says Dr. Kramer. Using advanced technology, his team was able to isolate the specific memory-forming neurons in fruit flies and track which genes were activated as memories formed and were recalled. This was no small feat—these neurons are tiny and hard to study. The team identified a group of genes that are switched on during long-term memory formation, as well as two key “switches” (called transcription factors) that control this process. What’s especially exciting is that these switches are also linked to human neurological disorders, including some rare neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases. “The genes that we discovered to be controlling memory storage in flies are also present in humans and implicated in human disease,” Dr. Kramer notes. “That means our work could help us understand not just memory but also give clues about the mechanisms underlying the related human disorders.” There is no scientific proof that water molecules posess any form of memory. Water can form beautiful fractal crystals or exhibit chaos depending on conditions and the makeup of foreign bodies. Pan consciousness is an interesting but unproven theory. |
