Could a Robot be Conscious?

[commonsense]

I believe we are talking in circles here as we are referring to different things.

Agreed. Consciousness is being defined differently by different posters. For argument’s sake, I am happy to start with any definition. From there, it might be possible to get close to the truth about the meaning of consciousness.

When I talk about consciousness then I am referring to that which knows the seen by being the seen, that which knows the heard by being the heard, that which knows thought by being thought etc...

There’s the rub. Does conscious know the PB&J sandwich (a thing which can be seen, touched, tasted and smelled) by being the PB&J sandwich? I really don’t know if this is your meaning or not, because the syntax does not appear to follow conventional rules. If you are not a bot, you will understand what I’m saying about the relation between syntax and meaning, and be able to use language more precisely.

This entire thread is rife with non-conventional expressions. To say that consciousness is something that is an attribute, that it is something that is aware of an existence, or that it is something that cannot be detected by humans, does not explain what consciousness is. Instead of describing what it does or does not do, what can or cannot be done to it, perhaps we need to focus consciousness per se. Yet consciousness may not be definable at the level of the language we use to define it. It is possible that some sort of meta-language is needed here. I don’t know.

Discussing the question "Could a Robot be Conscious?" without intimately knowing what consciousness is doesn't make much sense. We can at best substitute "consciousness" for something we know (a concept drawn up in thought) and pretend it is what we are talking about.

Yes! The question requires that we come to an agreement, or at least a willful consensus, on the meanings of ‘conscious’, ‘consciousness’ and perhaps later we all will need to agree on what a robot is.

Now that we have put "consciousness" into a place it doesn't belong - the dualistic mind - we start discussing it from within this confined space and get upset if nothing comes from it (or at least not more than differing opinions).

Absolutely. Dualistic thinking limits us to a dualistic interpretation of consciousness. Perhaps sublimating dualistic thinking to being only a part of the perspective we need.

Then someone says: You don't have/own consciousness, but you ARE consciousness - and everybody gets upset because it doesn't fit into the dualistic playground we have so carefully crafted. Then somebody dares to say: "Get out of your playground and look what its made of!" but nobody does... we rather keep on playing with our conceptual toys and get upset if they don't explain the world outside of the playground.

Of course, there are some who get upset. After all, “you ARE consciousness” is a tough one to fathom. The playground analogy points out that we can’t see the forest for the trees without flying over it. The perspective must be broadened rather than limited.

To understand what consciousness is you will have to be prepared to make some room for it to enter. Making room is done by abandoning ideas and beliefs that are found to be worthless as they don't take us anywhere (other than around in circles) - once there is room knowledge can enter, but only as long as we keep it empty and not immediately fill it up again with new, better ideas of what "consciousness" or reality is. It will make itself known if you let it - the only way to know it, is to know it directly (and not to hem it in with dualistic structures).

Definitely. We have to be open-minded in order to hear what other voices are saying.

Discussing things like "Could a Robot be Conscious?" is really not about finding an answer - its about seeing that there is no one true answer and that it might as such be beneficial to try a different approach. Maybe there is a way to know that the question simply makes no sense? Maybe there is a way to know what consciousness really is... this is what the question is made for. Not to be answered in a dualistic sense but to make us look beyond the question.

Amen.

I don’t know what consciousness is, but I’m trying to find out. I realize that this could turn out to be an impossible quest, but I’m willing to take on the task with the help of all who have contributed here.
I’d also like to see posts that are literally more understandable.

[jayjacobus]

I believe we are talking in circles here as we are referring to different things.

Agreed. Consciousness is being defined differently by different posters. For argument’s sake, I am happy to start with any definition. From there, it might be possible to get close to the truth about the meaning of consciousness.

When I talk about consciousness then I am referring to that which knows the seen by being the seen, that which knows the heard by being the heard, that which knows thought by being thought etc...

There’s the rub. Does conscious know the PB&J sandwich (a thing which can be seen, touched, tasted and smelled) by being the PB&J sandwich? I really don’t know if this is your meaning or not, because the syntax does not appear to follow conventional rules. If you are not a bot, you will understand what I’m saying about the relation between syntax and meaning, and be able to use language more precisely.

This entire thread is rife with non-conventional expressions. To say that consciousness is something that is an attribute, that it is something that is aware of an existence, or that it is something that cannot be detected by humans, does not explain what consciousness is. Instead of describing what it does or does not do, what can or cannot be done to it, perhaps we need to focus consciousness per se. Yet consciousness may not be definable at the level of the language we use to define it. It is possible that some sort of meta-language is needed here. I don’t know.

Discussing the question "Could a Robot be Conscious?" without intimately knowing what consciousness is doesn't make much sense. We can at best substitute "consciousness" for something we know (a concept drawn up in thought) and pretend it is what we are talking about.

Yes! The question requires that we come to an agreement, or at least a willful consensus, on the meanings of ‘conscious’, ‘consciousness’ and perhaps later we all will need to agree on what a robot is.

Now that we have put "consciousness" into a place it doesn't belong - the dualistic mind - we start discussing it from within this confined space and get upset if nothing comes from it (or at least not more than differing opinions).

Absolutely. Dualistic thinking limits us to a dualistic interpretation of consciousness. Perhaps sublimating dualistic thinking to being only a part of the perspective we need.

Then someone says: You don't have/own consciousness, but you ARE consciousness - and everybody gets upset because it doesn't fit into the dualistic playground we have so carefully crafted. Then somebody dares to say: "Get out of your playground and look what its made of!" but nobody does... we rather keep on playing with our conceptual toys and get upset if they don't explain the world outside of the playground.

Of course, there are some who get upset. After all, “you ARE consciousness” is a tough one to fathom. The playground analogy points out that we can’t see the forest for the trees without flying over it. The perspective must be broadened rather than limited.

To understand what consciousness is you will have to be prepared to make some room for it to enter. Making room is done by abandoning ideas and beliefs that are found to be worthless as they don't take us anywhere (other than around in circles) - once there is room knowledge can enter, but only as long as we keep it empty and not immediately fill it up again with new, better ideas of what "consciousness" or reality is. It will make itself known if you let it - the only way to know it, is to know it directly (and not to hem it in with dualistic structures).

Definitely. We have to be open-minded in order to hear what other voices are saying.

Discussing things like "Could a Robot be Conscious?" is really not about finding an answer - its about seeing that there is no one true answer and that it might as such be beneficial to try a different approach. Maybe there is a way to know that the question simply makes no sense? Maybe there is a way to know what consciousness really is... this is what the question is made for. Not to be answered in a dualistic sense but to make us look beyond the question.

Amen.

I don’t know what consciousness is, but I’m trying to find out. I realize that this could turn out to be an impossible quest, but I’m willing to take on the task with the help of all who have contributed here.
I’d also like to see posts that are literally more understandable.

Perhaps one of the sticking points is consciousness is a state. Can we agree that people have a soul and computers don't?

[AlexW]

Agreed. Consciousness is being defined differently by different posters. For argument’s sake, I am happy to start with any definition. From there, it might be possible to get close to the truth about the meaning of consciousness.

Yes, agree. Its important to define what we mean with consciousness.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines consciousness as “the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings” as well as “a person's awareness or perception of something.” These are typical definitions western societies use when referring to consciousness.
Ancient Eastern philosophy has a very different approach when defining consciousness: People (or animals, plants, stones, water…) don’t have consciousness – they ARE consciousness!
Problem is, these points of view will never be reconcilable - there simply is no workable compromise between them.

The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness published in July 2012 states that “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non- human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”
This seems to be in line with how the majority of humans has decided to divide creation into conscious and unconscious beings, basically agreeing that dogs or cats are conscious beings while consciousness is not thought to be present in life forms like insects, worms or plants.
The result is not surprising considering the fact that most people, including the scientists at Cambridge, consider consciousness to be dependent on having a brain (or at least a certain amount of “neural circuits supporting behavioural / electrophysiological states of attentiveness”).
The brain or nervous system is as such thought of as the source/creator of consciousness, rendering all life forms that don’t have the benefit of owning enough of the grey mass unconscious. As such the borders seem to be clearly set: Have a brain? You are conscious! No brain? Bad luck!

I see the western definition NOT as a definition of consciousness but rather for a creature's ability of producing dualistic thought. Splitting the world into me and other, good and bad, object1 vs object2 is NOT a proof for consciousness (as the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness wants to make us believe) - it is only a proof for dualistic thought (it is only a proof for consciousness if we agree to define consciousness as being the same as dualistic thinking - which, I say, is not the case).

Does conscious know the PB&J sandwich (a thing which can be seen, touched, tasted and smelled) by being the PB&J sandwich? I really don’t know if this is your meaning or not, because the syntax does not appear to follow conventional rules. If you are not a bot, you will understand what I’m saying about the relation between syntax and meaning, and be able to use language more precisely.

I know that what I said might sound strange as the syntax is unconventional - and so is the meaning.
No, consciousness does not know PB&J sandwiches. It doesn't know any things/objects - ever. This is the crucial point. Do we define consciousness as being part of the dualistic world? If so, then we can also call it mind/thought as all you ever know in the dualistic world are objects. And objects are thought. Below the objective world is non-dual reality / pure consciousness that knows no objects, no you, no me... it only knows itself. This essence is what everything is made of even things appear to be separate - the separating agent is dualistic thought...

Now... what are we talking about?
1) "Could a Robot have the ability for dualistic thought?"
or
2) "Could a Robot be Conscious?"

1) works as a question as both, the robot and the dualistic thought live in the same dimension of knowledge - the dualistic dimension - whereas in question 2) we really mix the dual and the non-dual which makes no sense (the question only makes sense when seen as an invitation to inquire into what consciousness really is, helping us to move past dualistic answers and see non-dual reality... but this is obviously not what people are here for).

[commonsense]

I am willing to accept on the face of it that consciousness and dualistic thought are not the same thing.

Let’s assume (I am neither affirming nor denying) that consciousness and non-dualistic thought are the same thing. By non-dual reality, I think we can assume that we are talking about monism in general and its assertion that thought and reality are the same thing.

We would have it, then, that consciousness and monistic thought/reality are one. But what follows from that?

Anyway, if monism stands in opposition to dualism, wouldn’t that, in itself, be ironically dualistic? How do we defend monistic thought, if it is in contrast to something else, i.e. dualistic thought?

[AlexW]

Let’s assume (I am neither affirming nor denying) that consciousness and non-dualistic thought are the same thing. By non-dual reality, I think we can assume that we are talking about monism in general and its assertion that thought and reality are the same thing.

Monism is not non-duality.
Monism normally talks about things - e.g. there exists only a single thing, the universe, which can only be artificially and arbitrarily divided into many things.
Non-duality knows nothing about things. There is no division at all (not even artificially).
The artificial division exists only in dualistic thought where the non-dual no-thing is divided into things (via thinking) - and as an effect dualistic reality seems to be created.

Conceptual thought can never touch the non-dual as it depends on the idea of separation - separation is the basis for dualistic thinking. Without this primary idea no dualistic thought would be possible. Dualistic thought and non-dual reality can as such never meet.

Anyway, if monism stands in opposition to dualism, wouldn’t that, in itself, be ironically dualistic? How do we defend monistic thought, if it is in contrast to something else, i.e. dualistic thought?

Monistic thought and dualistic thought are the same - both talk about objects and are as such dualistic. Monism might be a step towards non-duality without crossing the border.

[jayjacobus]

The soul is conscious. When a person is unconscious, the soul has been shut down but the body is still on. When the person is asleep, it is the soul that is asleep. The body is still on.

When the computer is "asleep", the cpu is inactive. It's not really asleep.

When a person sees images, smells odors, feels pain; it is the soul that sees, smells and feels.

The computer doesn't see, smell or feel because the computer processes data.

Monism, dualism are not pertinent to the discussion. Neither monism nor dualism have any relation to the subject.

[jayjacobus]

I say that the senses are dual with reality. Other people say "no, they're not". The disagreement is not a disagreement about facts, The disagreement is one of terminology. Only. Issue resolved.

[Dontaskme]

So I am the manifestation of awareness because I have acquired knowledge of it through my mind
And when I am dead I will have no more knowledge but awareness will carry on existing as always

I can understand and accept that but I have no knowledge of awareness before I was born as this life is all I have ever known
I cannot know what I have no memory of and this existence is all I will ever know and so when I die I will lose all knowledge

You cannot have knowledge of awareness...you can only be aware that you are awareness and that does not require knowledge to be awareness.Awareness has no knowledge of itself...rendering all knowledge the illusory manifestation of emptiness appearing to be full.

To know you are the knower requires two selves, one to know the other..and this is not what awareness is, awareness is one, not two.

You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself. Awareness is prior to the state of knowing, it's the self in it's pure formless empty state. And yet it is bursting with pure cognitive intelligence. Awareness exists prior to birth, else no birth would be aware it was living, it's like the flame that ignites another flame into existence from itself, it's all one seamless flame appearing as the many, but this is the illusion for there is no divide to Awareness.
In fact it's there/here all the time for there is no place else it can be or go to - it's all there is here, it's all that exists.

To know you had no awareness before you were born and will have no awareness when you die is a knowledge appearing in awareness now. You are also the awareness right now of the knowledge you existed before you knew you existed, and you will continue to exist when you no longer know you exist just as you existed prior to knowing you exist. You exist purely as awareness only..do you not see the obviousness in this?

If you did not exist prior to your birth, and will not exist after your death..then who is it that you think you are existing now??...how does that work, how can you not exist..then exist...and then not exist?

You've got to find out who that person is that exists seemingly between two non-existences...or is that you existing right now just a piece of knowledge aka an experience known appearing in Awareness that is you infinitely for eternity.

So coming back to the question can a robot be conscious ....the answer is no, simply because to know it was conscious, would require another consciousness...and there is no such thing as two consciousnesses...just as there is no such thing as two spaces, there is only SPACE and the contents of space impossible to separate.

.



.

[jayjacobus]

So I am the manifestation of awareness because I have acquired knowledge of it through my mind
And when I am dead I will have no more knowledge but awareness will carry on existing as always

I can understand and accept that but I have no knowledge of awareness before I was born as this life is all I have ever known
I cannot know what I have no memory of and this existence is all I will ever know and so when I die I will lose all knowledge

You cannot have knowledge of awareness...you can only be aware that you are awareness and that does not require knowledge to be awareness.Awareness has no knowledge of itself...rendering all knowledge the illusory manifestation of emptiness appearing to be full.

To know you are the knower requires two selves, one to know the other..and this is not what awareness is, awareness is one, not two.

You cannot know yourself, you can only be yourself. Awareness is prior to the state of knowing, it's the self in it's pure formless empty state. And yet it is bursting with pure cognitive intelligence. Awareness exists prior to birth, else no birth would be aware it was living, it's like the flame that ignites another flame into existence from itself, it's all one seamless flame appearing as the many, but this is the illusion for there is no divide to Awareness.
In fact it's there/here all the time for there is no place else it can be or go to - it's all there is here, it's all that exists.

To know you had no awareness before you were born and will have no awareness when you die is a knowledge appearing in awareness now. You are also the awareness right now of the knowledge you existed before you knew you existed, and you will continue to exist when you no longer know you exist just as you existed prior to knowing you exist. You exist purely as awareness only..do you not see the obviousness in this?

If you did not exist prior to your birth, and will not exist after your death..then who is it that you think you are existing now??...how does that work, how can you not exist..then exist...and then not exist?

You've got to find out who that person is that exists seemingly between two non-existences...or is that you existing right now just a piece of knowledge aka an experience known appearing in Awareness that is you infinitely for eternity.

So coming back to the question can a robot be conscious ....the answer is no, simply because to know it was conscious, would require another consciousness...and there is no such thing as two consciousnesses...just as there is no such thing as two spaces, there is only SPACE and the contents of space impossible to separate.

.
.

I am aware I have hands and I am aware of the state of my hands.
I know I have two kidneys but I am not aware of my kidneys nor am I aware of the state of my kidneys (although I hope they are functioning fine.)
I am not aware of my physical mind but I am aware off my mental mind and the state of my mind (relaxed and thinking).
Why do you say that I need two consciousnesses to be aware that I am conscious?
If I'm not aware that I am aware, I would be a zombie without any awareness at all.
And a computer is not aware at all. So, you arrived at the right conclusion but the computer does not have a state of awareness at all. But if it did, one would be sufficient.

[QuantumT]

All it takes for virtual consciousness to become is internal processing and sufficiently advanced coding.

I belive it has already happened. We are it.

Welcome to the simulation.

[commonsense]

The soul is conscious. When a person is unconscious, the soul has been shut down but the body is still on. When the person is asleep, it is the soul that is asleep. The body is still on.

When the computer is "asleep", the cpu is inactive. It's not really asleep.

When a person sees images, smells odors, feels pain; it is the soul that sees, smells and feels.

The computer doesn't see, smell or feel because the computer processes data.

Monism, dualism are not pertinent to the discussion. Neither monism nor dualism have any relation to the subject.

Data processors process data. Computers with AI do exponentially more.

But let’s not discuss monism nor dualism per se.

Does it make a difference as to what kind of consciousness a robot may have? If it does not, then consciousness does not have to be defined as such and divergent terminology becomes trivial. But the question becomes ambiguous in that case. “Can a robot be [insert undefined conscious term here]?”

Let’s not discuss monism nor dualism further, nor dualistic thinking nor non-dualistic thinking.

One kind of thinking seems to imply that a robot’s consciousness is a representation of reality. The other kind would have it that the robot must be in possession of a soul, or spirit, or non-physical state. In the one case, a robot could be conscious and in the other it could not.

If one kind of thinking is at odds with the other, then by the law of the excluded middle there is only one kind of consciousness a robot could have. That kind would be the true kind.

Let’s not discuss two kinds of consciousness, but if true consciousness can occur in a robot or not, let’s agree upon what true consciousness is.

Let’s say that thought is only a representation of what is experienced in reality.

I suppose that when we are conjuring something abstract, we are actually accessing the representations that compose such an abstract thought. For example, “Quoth the Raven ‘nevermore’”, where we have representations for speaking, for definite articles, for birds and for time.

But how can we explain the existence of a representation of the concept of a definite article? I’ll allow that if we have experienced “the” often enough in speech or in writing, the representation of “the” gets to be labelled an example of a definite article.

And how is it that there would have to exist a representation of “to be”? What experience was represented by this? How was existence experienced as an objective entity that can be represented? I’ll have it that this works the same way as for “the”.

Furthermore, how do we reconcile that dreams may not be representations of anything that exists in reality, or that has or could be experienced in reality? In what universe does it occur that a human can be chased by a cow driving a fast car?

I have no answer for the problem of dreams, however I would be happy to have it.

[AlexW]

I said it before, but I will repeat it again: We are talking in circles here as we are referring to different things.

DontAskMe and I are arguing from a position before all this conceptual knowledge has been added to You.
Before You knew about being a you/self there was only pure being/knowing. One could say it is being/life knowing itself (or consciousness knowing itself).
Then You have learned about separation and started identifying with a body/mind - now the original, unlimited self accepts the illusion that it has been torn into pieces and as such you limit yourself and identify with a part. The part, the mind made separation, now dominates your view of the world, of reality and as such of your Self.
You see the world just as you now see yourself - as limited, imprisoned into a body, borders appearing everywhere.
All the arguments that were raised originate from this (ultimately wrong) point of view - from being a limited self, in a limited body/mind.
Now this (apparently) limited body/mind attempts to discuss consciousness - your original self - You - but it does it from the limited perspective that You have accepted as your self.
The discussion is futile. There is no seeing/knowing the whole from the limited perspective - as long as you believe in limitation, consciousness (your true self) is impossible to see.
We can talk about concepts like souls or robots as much as we like, but there will be no end to it as there is not one truth to be found in the limited - there are only half truths as the house of concepts is built on an invented/illusory foundation.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know there is not one truth in this world that is True. Dualistic knowledge changes all the time and the earth morphs from flat into round, matter turns into energy and who knows what quantum mechanics will do over the next decades... our view of the world changes so fast, but no view is ultimately true - isn't a few thousand years of logical, dualistic thinking failing to define absolute truth (or any kind of absolute) proof enough to see it for what it is? A system of thought that is upside down; branches growing from a stem that has no root resulting in a tree that falls over if you only lean against it, but that we, nevertheless happily stick back into the ground after it has fallen over, ignoring the fact of its useless nature, trying to keep the dead thing going as if our self depended on it (well, it actually does - your limited self depends on it, but not You).

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

When I talk about consciousness then I am referring to that which knows the seen by being the seen, that which knows the heard by being the heard, that which knows thought by being thought etc... whereas the above seem to mistake content of thought for consciousness:

I don't understand what that means, and I especially don't understand how you would even know what that feels like, because you admittedly don't have it. It sounds like total nonsense to me.

I think I can more or less go back to the argument I said could be made, which is that if we do not have what you consider to be 'true consciousness', then we aren't allowed to believe that 'true consciousness' exists at all. If it lacks conceivability and has no examples that could be extrapolated, it lacks existential quantification. You need to look into that concept. Explain to me how it doesn't fall into that category.

Discussing the question "Could a Robot be Conscious?" without intimately knowing what consciousness is doesn't make much sense. We can at best substitute "consciousness" for something we know (a concept drawn up in thought) and pretend it is what we are talking about.

It's not 'pretending.' Words mean whatever we mean for them to mean. They don't have some sort of 'true' meaning that trumps all other uses of the word.

You seem to have set an arbitrary standard for what abilities consciousness has to include, rather than just the typical understanding that consciousness is self-awareness in a sort of intrinsic way. You want it to mean some variation of 'self-self-awareness' - and nobody has any idea what the hell that actually means, including yourself.

[AlexW]

if we do not have what you consider to be 'true consciousness', then we aren't allowed to believe that 'true consciousness' exists at all

Yes, we don't have it. You don't have it. I don't have it. Nobody has it. We are it.
This means consciousness isn't something you can have, its not a thing.
You believe you are a thing - e.g. a body that can have other things - like a car, clothes, maybe a cold... and thus you argue from this point of view. You believe things exist in their own right and can have other things (e.g. consciousness). This is a misperception.

Words mean whatever we mean for them to mean. They don't have some sort of 'true' meaning that trumps all other uses of the word.

Agree, words have a million meanings and everyone has his/her own idea what meaning a word might hold.
There is no true meaning - but there are words that point to truth - consciousness is one of them - and warping them in a way that they point away from truth is simply wrong.

You seem to have set an arbitrary standard for what abilities consciousness has to include

Yes, you are right: It includes none. It simply is.

rather than just the typical understanding that consciousness is self-awareness in a sort of intrinsic way

Not a bad understanding - remove the self from "self-awareness" and we are pretty close

You want it to mean some variation of 'self-self-awareness' - and nobody has any idea what the hell that actually means, including yourself.

No, I have never been talking about awareness of a self. I said consciousness knows only itself (which is again not a separate self, not an object)

[Dontaskme]

Why do you say that I need two consciousnesses to be aware that I am conscious?

The I AM is Consciousness full stop.......Consciousness is all there is, that's who you are.
To say I am consciousness is to imply there is some ''thing'' other than consciousness itself that is conscious of being consciousness, which implies two, the knower and the known. Consciousness is not an experience..it is the experiencing, it is the experiencer. (experiences appear in it inseparable from it, it's all it)

No thing is conscious of itself, just as a mirror is not conscious of it's reflecting capacity. A reflection (the self aware aspect)is an appearance of consciousness, an object in consciousness impossible to separate from consciousness. The object has no awareness, because the object is the looked upon, it's an image of what's already looking, which is emptiness appearing as fullness.

As consciousness you are self evident in that consciousness IS without doubt or error...but to know another consciousness is impossible...to assume others are conscious is an assumption born out of the idea that you are conscious...and there is no way of testing if separate consciousnesses exist outside of your own consciousness... Consciousness cannot know or have direct experience of the world of another consciousness...that would be impossible...so this is how we know consciousness is all there is and there is no other consciousness..in other words there is no way to measure consciousness or say what it is, only that it is, neither can it be said to say consciousness starts here and ends there, because quite frankly it is formless and everywhere at once.. it is the seer and seen in the same moment, all images seen are in the seer inseparably one and the same reality....so all images are appearing in consciousness having an illusory nature as they come and go..while consciousness cannot and does not come and go for it is a constant still presence always here...and it's just as well for without that still constant background behind all images.. reality would be very fragmented and incoherent indeed.

If I'm not aware that I am aware, I would be a zombie without any awareness at all.

We're talking about the awareness that is always present...there is no knowledge of awareness existing or anything else existing while in deep dreamless sleep, or when you were a baby inside your mothers womb and yet you were...that's the kind of awareness we are talking about here. We're talking about the nondual state of oneness, not the dual state of I and other, knower and known.

That awareness is the true nature of reality, it is that without an object...the object being an illusory image of the imageless awareness.

.

As soon as we start talking about making robots conscious we are entering into a very deluded mind set.

.