Does Mind Require a Biological Body to be Conscious?

[Obvious Leo]

I would suggest that conciousness is the precursor to self-awareness. Animals are conscious, but not necessarily self-aware, unlike human animals. And existence is the precursor to consciousness, though inanimate objects exist, and are not conscious of their existence. That, to my mind, is the requisite hierarchy.

Yes. This is more like the standard usage of the terms in cognitive neuroscience. All organisms with a brain and central nervous system can be defined as conscious because their response to stimulus is only probabilistically predictable and the reason for this is because they have a capacity for learning. Self-awareness, on the other hand, is a definition usually only applied to higher-order cognitive function, although its precise definition is not easily nailed down. Generally self-awareness is only applied to organisms which are aware that they are conscious, you might say.

[UniversalAlien]

Many years ago i was reading a book "Alien Intelligence" (1979) by Stuart Holroyd - Turned out to be a rather heavy book
as the author got into all sorts of concepts of intelligence including animals, occult phenomena, and in one chapter was
talking about a rather simple AI program - A robot programmed to move boxes from point A to point B - He pointed out
that the robot at some point had to make decisions as to how to move the boxes - Simple AI you say, programmed, and that is true but in a very limited sense it was thinking, in a very limited sense it possessed some degree of consciousness. A mouse trap, as simple as it is once set is programmed consciousness - it will act independently of its creator. The machine you are looking at right now is programmed consciousness - it performs many functions independently of you - set to perform these functions, nonetheless it performs them without your intervention - But yes its consciousness is set and limited by the programs and software you installed in it. The mouse trap, the robot and your computer are indeed quite limited - for now..........But AI is rapidly evolving - The military probably has programs that could wipe out entire cities -
and could be programmed to do so in the event of an attack - For now they probably have 'fail-safes' built in to prevent
runaway AI from reigning destruction by system error - Makes you feel secure does it not?

We could debate until hell freezes over, and use all the philosophical jargon available as to whether this 'programmed
consciousness' is 'really conscious' - And when and if a mistake, a glitch in the system decides, like the Daleks from
Doctor Who decides to 'exterminate' and just before the final end you can rest assured that you are right
- a compute can never really be conscious

“HIs chess-playing methods did the same thing — as did the games on the Colossi — and posed the question as to where a line could be drawn between the 'intelligent' and the 'mechanical'. His view, expressed in terms of the imitation principle, was that there was no such line, and neither did he ever draw a sharp distinction between the 'states of mind' approach and the 'instruction note' approach to the problem of reconciling the appearance of freedom and of determinism.”
― Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma

[Obvious Leo]

UA. I think the entire point about consciousness from the neuroscientific perspective is that it is NOT programmed. Minds are self-programming and by using non-linear evolutionary algorithms this function can be incorporated in a very limited sense into existing linear computer algorithms. However even in this limited sense the output of such computations can never be predicted, even in principle, because these algorithms evolve over time. A number of such simple evolutionary algorithms have in fact been inserted by hackers into the internet and it will be forever utterly impossible to find them and remove them. The famous Stuxnet worm is one such example. It may eventually be possible to build a truly autonomous non-linear computer but I very much doubt that anybody would be foolish enough to do it. Some of the more bleeding edge theorists even suggest that it is theoretically possible for the internet itself to evolve into a mind. This is a very scary prospect because minds have a habit of choosing to do their own thinking and although it beggars the imagination to wonder what the agenda of a sentient internet might be it would be wise to assume that it might not be compatible with the human users of it.

[UniversalAlien]

.......... Some of the more bleeding edge theorists even suggest that it is theoretically possible for the internet itself to evolve into a mind. This is a very scary prospect because minds have a habit of choosing to do their own thinking and although it beggars the imagination to wonder what the agenda of a sentient internet might be it would be wise to assume that it might not be compatible with the human users of it.

I agree 100% Leo and often quote others who are experts in the field - for example:

STEPHEN HAWKING WARNS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE COULD END HUMANITY

If you think future wars will be fought against robots, you aren’t alone.

“Computers will overtake humans with AI [artificial intelligence] at some point within the next 100 years,” Stephen Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist, said on Tuesday at the Zeitgeist 2015 conference in London. “When that happens, we need to make sure the computers have goals aligned with ours.”

AI refers to the intelligence of computer systems, allowing them to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence. Apple’s Siri and self-driving cars are current examples............

See whole article here:
http://www.newsweek.com/stephen-hawking ... ity-332082

Ever wonder what the military has already developed besides the drones and robots we are aware of?

[Obvious Leo]

I disagree with Hawking that AI could overtake human intelligence within 100 years because I don't think we'd be stupid enough to allow it to happen. If we are then we're just another of nature's failed experiments. She won't give a fuck one way or the other.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Without a proper definition of consciousness this question has no answer. Human minds are embodied so to speak of a human mind in the absence of a human body is a logical fallacy. Likewise the mind of a dog needs the body of a dog and the mind of an aardvark needs the body of an aardvark.

This seems the only reasonable epistemic approach to take, unless you want to go down the dualist route which seems to have no credibility, based as it is on the assumption that we have a independent and incorporeal element to us.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Without a proper definition of consciousness this question has no answer. Human minds are embodied so to speak of a human mind in the absence of a human body is a logical fallacy. Likewise the mind of a dog needs the body of a dog and the mind of an aardvark needs the body of an aardvark.

Consciousness is a process that is aware of itself and the environment where it exists.

By this definition computer consciousness may have already exceeded that of Mans
- And the consciousness of Humanity is already tenuous.

Welcome to the Cyber Universe.

-UniversalAlien

A computer is not aware of itself in any sense.
Do you watch a lot of fantasy/sci-fi?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Consciousness is a process that is aware of itself and the environment where it exists.

So you reckon that consciousness and self-awareness are synonymous constructs. Since this is a non-standard usage of these terms perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

I agree but you can use the phrase to make a distinction in degree.
A simple animal might be 'conscious' of a food source and follow a pheromone to find it, like an ant on a trail. But a chimp seeing itself in a mirror would recognise that it was a reflection of the sort of consciousness that it enjoys with what you might call an inner eye.
I'm not sure where you would best point to the gray area that divides the two things on an evolutionary hierarchy of complexity, but I think it might be a useful distinction to make.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I disagree with Hawking that AI could overtake human intelligence within 100 years because I don't think we'd be stupid enough to allow it to happen. If we are then we're just another of nature's failed experiments. She won't give a fuck one way or the other.

Computers are better than us in many ways. I think the idea that they are conscious or could be is probably ridiculous.

[Obvious Leo]

I'm not sure where you would best point to the gray area that divides the two things on an evolutionary hierarchy of complexity, but I think it might be a useful distinction to make.

Useful but probably not realistically possible. It seems more realistic to regard both consciousness and awareness of consciousness as spectrum phenomena where no meaningful line in the sand can be drawn.

Computers are better than us in many ways. I think the idea that they are conscious or could be is probably ridiculous.

I tend to agree with this if we stick to the generically understood definitions of consciousness. However this does not mean that computers could not become dangerous if they are granted too much autonomy of action. There have already been some instances of this but it would be rather foolish to suggest that a computer could endanger us as the result of an agenda of malice. That would be to draw too long a bow.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'm not sure where you would best point to the gray area that divides the two things on an evolutionary hierarchy of complexity, but I think it might be a useful distinction to make.

Useful but probably not realistically possible. It seems more realistic to regard both consciousness and awareness of consciousness as spectrum phenomena where no meaningful line in the sand can be drawn.
But that still implies a valid difference between the two ideas

Computers are better than us in many ways. I think the idea that they are conscious or could be is probably ridiculous.

I tend to agree with this if we stick to the generically understood definitions of consciousness. However this does not mean that computers could not become dangerous if they are granted too much autonomy of action. There have already been some instances of this but it would be rather foolish to suggest that a computer could endanger us as the result of an agenda of malice. That would be to draw too long a bow.

How to confound a Dalek? Go upstairs. How do we confound a super computer? Pull out the plug!

[UniversalAlien]

Whether or not AI is, can be, or ever will be conscious depends on the way you want to define consciousness.
But no one here would deny it could be dangerous - In the dangerous kind of AI you can not just pull out the plug.
That is almost like saying if the internet becomes too much of a problem you could just turn it off and re-program its
operation. Too late, turning it off would close down commerce and civilization might be set back to ???

BUT, i was just listening to a program on the Fukishima nuclear disaster in Japan and the scientist claimed the
consequences are being covered up - It is far worse than they want the public to know and they are not acting
fast enough to stop the radiation leaking into the ocean - leaking big time.

Now if AI is developed as it should be for Man's benefit, conscious or not, we could have a super-brain to stop
good old fashioned Human stupidity - An oracle that would have said no to putting a Nuclear reactor in an
Earthquake zone. Call it 'The Oracle Project' the development of the super-brain - Human stupidity is still a
far greater threat to Man's existence than Artificial Intelligence or computers.

[attofishpi]

Human stupidity is still a far greater threat to Man's existence than Artificial Intelligence or computers.

Currently.

[attofishpi]

Look at this way - We may have to flash forward a bit, but it might be possible today. We use the most advanced computer in existence and the best AI available. We hook you up with the latest medical body and mind scanning available - scans that actually record the functioning of your biological brain - can read and interpret the bio-electrical functioning of your brain. Then we download this into the super computer - then the question might become whether a software program could be developed to work as your brain works {or a least similar as a machine is not biological.
Now say that can be done we can duplicate your thinking processes.
Now we try the UniversalAlien test for AI consciousness - I say if I can have a conversation with the machine where the machine can supply more to the conversation then my mind alone - it is conscious. Now some might say computers can do that right now - and some might say in that limited way they are already conscious. But now I have cloned my conscious mind into the machine - It can literally think for me - It can 'feel' what I feel and make decisions for me - In a sense some medical devices are already doing this.

This topic is a favourite of mine UA. On your last point you need to consider the distinction in an electronic machine that is able to converse as you do actually has nothing to do with 'feelings', whether they be emotional or haptic. The machines don't 'feel' do they. They only 'sense' by way of changing bit patterns, a whole bunch of electronic switches. My most often used example is placing the hand of a person and the hand of a robot onto a desk and striking each. Only one is 'feeling' pain. The other simply measured the pressure felt, both may retract their appendages but im sure you would agree, the human is the one worse off.

One day i die - And they turn on my computer and the computer asks where is my biological self - And you tell his cloned machine he is dead. And the machine says what do I do now? And now what do you do with the conscious AI running in the machine? What if it starts to question you on the circumstances of my demise and expresses its remorse.

Simulated remorse.

Is it conscious? Am I still alive in a digital matrix Can I now be uploaded into an android Though biologically dead I can still think - do I still exist

No. You are dead, but there is an AI that has all your history, it identically mimics your thought process, however as it progresses into the future it will start to take shape in a different direction to how you would have, as a human if you continued to live - since you are a biological entity - that fluctuates and degrades over time affecting your consciousness. Further, as i mentioned above, you are an entity able to see, hear, touch, taste, wank, smell - i hope, ergo the inputs that allow you to develop your conscious being are vastly different to that of a machine.

It is conceivable, even now, with what we know about AI and the way it is advancing, that the entire world could be controlled by AI intelligence

Yes. I know we are in a system, whether it be divine, created by our ancestors, or beings that could be quite alien to us.
SIN_AI (where 'Moses' got the commandments re sin)
REAL_IT_Y?
My site provides some in.sight regarding this, i am a panentheist - although i dont consider myself a theist since i no longer merely believe. The interesting tangent for me on the 'divine' consideration is that it is conceivable that 'God' formed its own intelligence from the chaos of the early universe, entirely void of cellular biology.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt? http://www.androcies.com

[Hobbes' Choice]

BUT, i was just listening to a program on the Fukishima nuclear disaster in Japan and the scientist claimed the
consequences are being covered up - It is far worse than they want the public to know and they are not acting
fast enough to stop the radiation leaking into the ocean - leaking big time.
.

I heard the complete opposite.
And what has this got to do with the topic?