Does Mind Require a Biological Body to be Conscious?

[Londoner]

Consider how much more still that AI, programmed with a portion of human intelligence, could achieve without any emotion or qualia.

The problem is with the word 'achieve'. We don't agree what we want to achieve; what is the state of the world that we are aiming for? Any attempt to answer that question would just invite another generality like; we want it to be 'better'. We can achieve all sorts of particular things, putting up buildings, writing philosophy posts, but we can't 'achieve' in the abstract.

The same with the notion of AI taking 'control'. Control of what? In order to do what? What would an example be of something 'in control'? Such questions are unanswerable, and not just because we don't have big enough computers.

So what is it that the AI wants? Since we can't come up with a specific answer for ourselves, how is the AI going to compute it?

I think that this problem is expressed in science fiction. When AI attacks, it is either an individual human with mechanical bits, or it is essentially a runaway train.

[Terrapin Station]

Does Mind Require a Biological Body to be Conscious?

Yes, of course. Because mind IS "biological body." (Or more specifically, particular brain states.)

[Terrapin Station]

Of course the same definition could be used for machine consciousness - Awareness
and an ability to interact with the environment - many machines could do that now.

In my opinion there's no good reason to believe that any machines are or could be aware now.

Human is aware of himself - So the question then becomes can a machine be aware of itself?

Self-awareness isn't anything complicated. Once you've got awareness, self-awareness is not a big step. It's simply awareness of oneself rather than something else.

[OuterLimits]

Of course the same definition could be used for machine consciousness - Awareness
and an ability to interact with the environment - many machines could do that now.

In my opinion there's no good reason to believe that any machines are or could be aware now.

What might constitute a "good reason" someday to decide otherwise?

[Hobbes' Choice]

with artificial intelligence you can simulate everything we are only make it more powerful than us. Even being aware can be simulated. The mind is more the soul than the brain it exists in extra dimensions.

That is just silly.
You can have no evidence of that.

[Terrapin Station]

Of course the same definition could be used for machine consciousness - Awareness
and an ability to interact with the environment - many machines could do that now.

In my opinion there's no good reason to believe that any machines are or could be aware now.

What might constitute a "good reason" someday to decide otherwise?

I don't know. I don't know if there ever would be one. The idea that other sorts of materials could obtain consciousness could be sorely mistaken.

[Greta]

Consider how much more still that AI, programmed with a portion of human intelligence, could achieve without any emotion or qualia.

The problem is with the word 'achieve'. We don't agree what we want to achieve; what is the state of the world that we are aiming for? Any attempt to answer that question would just invite another generality like; we want it to be 'better'. We can achieve all sorts of particular things, putting up buildings, writing philosophy posts, but we can't 'achieve' in the abstract.

The same with the notion of AI taking 'control'. Control of what? In order to do what? What would an example be of something 'in control'? Such questions are unanswerable, and not just because we don't have big enough computers.

So what is it that the AI wants? Since we can't come up with a specific answer for ourselves, how is the AI going to compute it?

I think that this problem is expressed in science fiction. When AI attacks, it is either an individual human with mechanical bits, or it is essentially a runaway train.

They are going to supplant us eventually unless there's a decision made, and the means, to destroy them all. I think that's unlikely. In order to replace us AI don't have to do anything but be helpful. Eventually the planet will be uninhabitable as our ageing star heats. The biosphere has about a billion years left. AI may be able to persist for much longer in conditions beyond our ability to survive.

My earlier point in context was that ants can build extraordinary little "cities" with precious little conscious awareness. Now imagine what AI could build.

I do take your point, though - "but to what end does AI create?" - and it's an important question. My first thought is that AI comes directly from human society and will at first be deeply influenced by human perspectives and values. By the same token, modern humans still retain numerous primitive features inherited from our common ancestor with other apes, currently estimated to be 5-7 million years ago. AI might shake off our influence more quickly, maybe not. Certainly if we go extinct they lose their raison d'etre, barring contingency programming.

Further, consider AI as our potential successors. As the end inevitably arrives for humanity and the rest of life on Earth, there will be hope that AI can carry on humanity's efforts in space - to carry Earth biota and information to other planets and moons. Even to tell the Earth's history in the lottery-like possibility that they eventually encounter other advanced aliens.

Or perhaps AI think there is something more important to preserve and develop? When I say "think", I should say "calculate". They wont be thinking or feeling as we do, since they don't need to.

[Beauty]

I don't think the mind requires a biological body to be conscious, but the body requires a mind to be conscious. And I think that we are artificial intelligences ourself happening or forming from quarks but only eventually not immediately, and we cannot make artificial intelligence in the sense of creating a robot that can think, feel, understand, have an i.d. etc., but we are artificial intelligence ourself, to the point that we can even feel together with having thinking and understanding.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I don't think the mind requires a biological body to be conscious,.

Are you wiling to take the blunt spoon challenge?

[Harbal]

And I think that we are artificial intelligences ourself

I think it's a bit unrealistic of you to lay claim to intelligence of any variety to be honest.

[TSBU]

Short answer: No.
A little longer: What is conscious? I can make a computer say "i am councious".
My favourite kind of answer: Oh, 17 pages...

[Beauty]

Well definitely in a certain context we are conscious, but in another context we are not but our mind is. Certainly context matters, so we making computers and considering ourself conscious is right in only that context.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Short answer: No.]

Example?

[TSBU]

Short answer: No.]

Example?

Bobevenson. He is too repetitive to be a human, and if he is organic, I think someone can programm a bobevenson.

Is it possible to have the number 1234566789 wining the lottery? Yes. Example?

We "talked" about this in the past, before you left. Consciousness is a nice word, like love, but it is just what it can only be, software in a hardware, a programm in our brain.
Hardware: Now if we get to define "biological", then I guess that's... based on C? Well, no matter how many combinations are there in our brain, it is possible to do the same with metal, or who knows what, not from a mother.
Software: Well, now that's the problem, noone can explain with their own words what is consciousness, that means, obviously, you can't put in paper your own program thinking, because you can't have a box inside itself. But we are talking about the possibility of existence, and then, yes, of course, it is phisicaly possible (like two human beings comletely equal), there is not a defined and well known rule against it. Now, if we get the "consciousness" definition more laxe (not exactly like you), then, it will become true more easily.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Short answer: No.]

Example?

Bobevenson. He is too repetitive to be a human, and if he is organic, I think someone can programm a bobevenson.

Is it possible to have the number 1234566789 wining the lottery? Yes. Example?

Fallacy of false analogy

We "talked" about this in the past, before you left. Consciousness is a nice word, like love, but it is just what it can only be, software in a hardware, a programm in our brain.

The question is "Does Mind Require a Biological Body to be Conscious?" you said NO.
Give an example?

Hardware: Now if we get to define "biological", then I guess that's... based on C? Well, no matter how many combinations are there in our brain, it is possible to do the same with metal, or who knows what, not from a mother.
Software: Well, now that's the problem, noone can explain with their own words what is consciousness, that means, obviously, you can't put in paper your own program thinking, because you can't have a box inside itself. But we are talking about the possibility of existence, and then, yes, of course, it is phisicaly possible (like two human beings comletely equal), there is not a defined and well known rule against it. Now, if we get the "consciousness" definition more laxe (not exactly like you), then, it will become true more easily.

In other words you think you are right because you are too stupid to define consciousness, but think you can fool yourself by making a computer print "I am Conscious".

In what way are you not just a waste of oxygen?