Could a Robot be Conscious?

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by AlexW »

jayjacobus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:28 pm There is a reality external to the brain and a reality internal to the brain. Two realities.
If reality would depend on a brain it would be a very sad reality indeed...
I define reality as this that doesn't require anything else for it to exist - it rests on itself, not an a brain's interpretation. There is as such no reality in a brain - there can only be an interpretation of it.
jayjacobus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:39 pm You know quite well that there are many, many people who understand consciousness as defined in a dictionary and you also know that is the definition I used. Yet you pretend you don't know what I meant so you can say something completely unrelated.
How is this unrelated? The thread is about "Could a Robot be Conscious?" - I am only stating that "no, a robot cannot be conscious; no, not even a human can be conscious, because there is only consciousness".

You asked me "If an elephant grieves, is she conscious?" - the answer is obviously NO. Grieving doesn't prove that an elephant is conscious. It only proves consciousness, but not an elephant having/owning his/her individual consciousness.
jayjacobus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:39 pm Perhaps you hope to make computers seem humanlike by undefining words.
If a word as defined in a dictionary is defined in the wrong way one doesn't have to continue making the same mistake but should rather aim at correcting it.
See:
Consciousness: a person's awareness or perception of something -- is obviously wrong as consciousness is never owned by a person; the person is only an idea, it doesn't exist outside the conceptual structure / belief that it does
Infinity: a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number / a very great number or amount -- is obviously wrong as infinity is not a number or a quantity - it is reality, it has no parts, it is what you are
etc... etc.. etc..
All these definitions are based on dual thinking trying to explain the non-dual - this will never work!
jayjacobus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:39 pm Elephants have emotions.
An emotion is not more than thought combined with physical sensations. We label certain combinations: fear, anger, happiness... but if we look for "anger" we will only find thoughts stating that "I am angry" and we will find certain physical sensation that seem to confirm the idea. There might be a contraction in the chest, maybe an empty feeling in the abdomen. A quickening of the heart rate. Take all these things together (thought and physical sensations) and we have what we call "anger" etc...
jayjacobus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:39 pm Computers don't Computers are completely conditional. Humans (and most likely elephants) are conditional and interpretive.
Give a computer the means to interpret certain input/sensations as belonging to itself (=we create an artificial, separate self) then a computer will be just as emotional as any human or animal.
It will have inherited the wrong (and very dangerous) belief of being a separate individual from us, its creator, and will as such act accordingly. This development could be very dangerous for humanity indeed as once a life-form develops the idea of being a separate individual that can benefit from subjugating others it will find it easy to justify violence even against its creator (humans are the best example for this mad behaviour).
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by jayjacobus »

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 2:49 am
jayjacobus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:28 pm There is a reality external to the brain and a reality internal to the brain. Two realities.
If reality would depend on a brain it would be a very sad reality indeed...
I define reality as this that doesn't require anything else for it to exist - it rests on itself, not an a brain's interpretation. There is as such no reality in a brain - there can only be an interpretation of it.
If we are only quibbling over what to call the representations in the brain, then you have your name and I have mine but my name is just as correct as yours.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 2:49 am
jayjacobus wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 11:39 pm You know quite well that there are many, many people who understand consciousness as defined in a dictionary and you also know that is the definition I used. Yet you pretend you don't know what I meant so you can say something completely unrelated.
How is this unrelated? The thread is about "Could a Robot be Conscious?" - I am only stating that "no, a robot cannot be conscious; no, not even a human can be conscious, because there is only consciousness".
You've butchered the definition of consciousness. This thread is about consciousness not about something you've made up. Whatever you mean needs a separate mame like xyzness.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by jayjacobus »

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 2:49 am
Give a computer the means to interpret certain input/sensations as belonging to itself (=we create an artificial, separate self) then a computer will be just as emotional as any human or animal.
It will have inherited the wrong (and very dangerous) belief of being a separate individual from us, its creator, and will as such act accordingly. This development could be very dangerous for humanity indeed as once a life-form develops the idea of being a separate individual that can benefit from subjugating others it will find it easy to justify violence even against its creator (humans are the best example for this mad behaviour).
Computers don't interpret. They process. The go from one switch to another. That's not interpreting.

Emotions come from the brain sensing the state of consciousness. When consciousness is in an angry state the brain creates ab angry sensation. Without the sensation anger would be solely intellectual.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by AlexW »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 4:09 am Computers don't interpret. They process. The go from one switch to another. That's not interpreting.
In computer science, an interpreter is a computer program that directly executes, i.e. performs, instructions written in a programming language. It normally translates the source code into an intermediate representation and executes it.
This is pretty much identical to what the brain does. We hear a specific sound, interpret it using language - ahh.... its someone saying "hello" - and then the brain triggers a certain reaction that has been learned (=programmed) by following other peoples' example of how to respond to a greeting. If the brain wouldn't have been programmed to understand/interpret the sound as a greeting there would be no recognition/proper interpretation and thus no reaction (or at least not more than a general "I don't understand" reaction).
This is not really different to how a computer can interpret external events (as long as it runs a proper interpreter).
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 4:09 am Emotions come from the brain sensing the state of consciousness.
How do you know that?
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 4:09 am When consciousness is in an angry state the brain creates an angry sensation
Haha... thats very funny! Consciousness being angry...
Anger is not more than thought stating "I am angry" - a feedback loop that feeds on itself keeps the "angry" thoughts going and as such appears as "anger", but when we really look we will never find this "anger". All there is are thoughts and certain physical sensations that thought uses to prove (to itself) that "I am angry." Its fairly easy to see that without thinking about being angry one cannot be angry.
Furthermore, consciousness cannot be angry - it doesn't know about good/bad, angry/peaceful, me/other... if it could be angry it would have to be angry with itself. Something that hopefully doesn't ever happen as it might as well blow up the whole universe in its rage :-)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8632
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by Dontaskme »

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 2:49 amHow is this unrelated? The thread is about "Could a Robot be Conscious?" - I am only stating that "no, a robot cannot be conscious; no, not even a human can be conscious, because there is only consciousness".
People not familiar with this statement will shoot it down. You are right AlexW, but not many people hear this.

There is only Consciousness, and no human brain is conscious. When the brain reaches the point where it can no longer function it disintegrates back into it's constitutional elements that make up all bodily organs. Nothing dies, because nothing was born. The body is disintegrating and renewing itself in an infinite cycle of regeneration for eternity.

So when the brain aka the 'mental generator' of ideas aka knowledge, - apparently dies ..this is not a death the way the apparition called the ego has been conditioned to think it is, it's just the end of knowledge for that particular mentally generated apparition which apparently brains itself into existence....it's the end of knowledge, not the end of Consciousness.

Consciousness being synonymous to Life..and Life does not snuff out of existence.

Life is all that can be known...it is the 'knowledge' side of Consciousness.
Consciousness has to be always, so knowledge, aka thinking is always on demand for that which has always existed. So then death is the unknowable side of Consciousness. Life and Death are complimentary opposites, they are two sides of the same coin.
So here, no thing is dead, and no thing is alive, except the knowledge of such, aka conception.

Only the 'mind' is born aka 'knowledge'. Consciousness is the knowing, the experiencing, the thinking... that has to be the primary constant for any knowledge to become known, experienced, or thought.

Consciousness on the inner sense is latent unaware energy, on the outer sense it is aware active energy. Life and death is this immediate Consciousness alternating between the two states, one side being stateless, the other being a state...neither state can exist independent of the other, they are one in the same reality, one side is an appearance within that which never appears.

And so you are quite right in that there will be no such thing as a conscious robot, simply because that which is only ever ONE infinitely can never repeat itself...

.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
when the brain aka the mental generator of ideas aka knowledge apparently dies .. this is not a death the way the apparition called the ego has been conditioned to think it is it is just the end of knowledge for that particular mentally generated apparition which apparently brains itself in
to existence .... it is the end of knowledge not the end of Consciousness
Will consciousness carry on existing in a universe without brains
When there are no brains left will knowledge cease to exist too

This is how I see it from my perspective

There is existence as there always has been and always will be
When human beings are born they become aware of existence
And when they die then they are no longer aware of existence
But existence carries on existing whether anyone or anything knows it does

The only difference between us is you talk of consciousness while I talk of existence
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by jayjacobus »

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:03 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 4:09 am Computers don't interpret. They process. The go from one switch to another. That's not interpreting.
In computer science, an interpreter is a computer program that directly executes, i.e. performs, instructions written in a programming language. It normally translates the source code into an intermediate representation and executes it.
This is pretty much identical to what the brain does. We hear a specific sound, interpret it using language - ahh.... its someone saying "hello" - and then the brain triggers a certain reaction that has been learned (=programmed) by following other peoples' example of how to respond to a greeting. If the brain wouldn't have been programmed to understand/interpret the sound as a greeting there would be no recognition/proper interpretation and thus no reaction (or at least not more than a general "I don't understand" reaction).
This is not really different to how a computer can interpret external events (as long as it runs a proper interpreter).
It is certainly different. A person is aware and then concludes. The computer doesn't conclude. It matches.

Using two different connotations to say two processes are the same is a fallacy. A computer doesn't see because it doesn't have the sense of sight. It processes data from light waves. Yet it is fairly common for computer experts to say that a computer sees. That is wishful thinking.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 6:03 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 4:09 am Emotions come from the brain sensing the state of consciousness.
How do you know that?
Emotions have a feeling to awareness. The feeling must come from somewhere. They do. They come from the brain just like senses. What is the source? The source is internal rather than external. What is the source. The state of consciousness. What other state could it be?
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by AlexW »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am A computer doesn't see because it doesn't have the sense of sight
Add a camera and some pattern matching algorithm and it does.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am It processes data from light waves.
Yes... so does the eye...
Light falls on the light-sensitive cells of the retina (=photoreceptors) and are converted into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve and interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer does exactly the same when it sees and interprets the environment (see self driving cars, robots etc)
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am Yet it is fairly common for computer experts to say that a computer sees. That is wishful thinking.
It is not wishful thinking - it's a fact... and it wont be long before computers see much better than humans ever will (if thats not the case already).

A human body is not more than a highly evolved organic machine. It is in no way special, "godlike" or in any other way magical.
The belief that "I, the human body" am so much more evolved than anything else that walks the earth is not more than a pretentious idea. Human bodies are not special, they are made of the same basic elements everything else in this universe is made of. They are not better or worse - they are equal to everything else in creation.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am Emotions have a feeling to awareness. The feeling must come from somewhere. They do. They come from the brain just like senses. What is the source? The source is internal rather than external. What is the source. The state of consciousness. What other state could it be?
What other state? The state of thinking. There are no other states at all - only thought knows of states. Consciousness has no states - it simply IS - full stop.
Believe you are sad - you experience sadness. Believe you are angry - you experience anger.
This doesn't mean that these emotions exist on their own. They are always a combination of thought and simple, physical sensations. The conviction that "I am sad" creates the "emotion" - a mixup of basic physical sensation and interpretative thought.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by jayjacobus »

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am A computer doesn't see because it doesn't have the sense of sight
Add a camera and some pattern matching algorithm and it does.
That's apples and oranges. People see. Computers process.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am It processes data from light waves.
Yes... so does the eye...
Light falls on the light-sensitive cells of the retina (=photoreceptors) and are converted into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve and interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer does exactly the same when it sees and interprets the environment (see self driving cars, robots etc)
What you should have said:
Light falls on the light-sensitive cells of the retina (=photoreceptors) and are converted into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve, the brain creates images which are interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer on the other hand creates numerical patterns which are matched to existing patterns.
So a computer gets the same results in a different way. It does not see and it does not interpret.
A computer may exceed humans but only because it functions differently.

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am {quote=jayjacobus post_id=358249 time=1525686250 user_id=11868]
Yet it is fairly common for computer experts to say that a computer sees. That is wishful thinking.
It is not wishful thinking - it's a fact... and it wont be long before computers see much better than humans ever will (if thats not the case already).

A human body is not more than a highly evolved organic machine. It is in no way special, "godlike" or in any other way magical.
The belief that "I, the human body" am so much more evolved than anything else that walks the earth is not more than a pretentious idea. Human bodies are not special, they are made of the same basic elements everything else in this universe is made of. They are not better or worse - they are equal to everything else in creation.
[/quote

The human body is to a large extent biomechanical (conditional)and thus has a comparison to a computer which is conditional. Buit consciousness is not biomechanical. It's interpretive while a computer is completely conditional.

[/quote
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am Emotions have a feeling to awareness. The feeling must come from somewhere. They do. They come from the brain just like senses. What is the source? The source is internal rather than external. What is the source. The state of consciousness. What other state could it be?
What other state? The state of thinking. There are no other states at all - only thought knows of states. Consciousness has no states - it simply IS - full stop.
Believe you are sad - you experience sadness. Believe you are angry - you experience anger.
This doesn't mean that these emotions exist on their own. They are always a combination of thought and simple, physical sensations. The conviction that "I am sad" creates the "emotion" - a mixup of basic physical sensation and interpretative thought.
You state some observations about emotions but not how they formed in the brain. I did.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by jayjacobus »

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am A computer doesn't see because it doesn't have the sense of sight
Add a camera and some pattern matching algorithm and it does.
That's apples and oranges. People see. Computers process.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am It processes data from light waves.
Yes... so does the eye...
Light falls on the light-sensitive cells of the retina (=photoreceptors) and are converted into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve and interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer does exactly the same when it sees and interprets the environment (see self driving cars, robots etc)
What you should have said:
Light falls on the light-sensitive cells of the retina (=photoreceptors) and are converted into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve, the brain creates images which are interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer on the other hand creates numerical patterns which are matched to existing patterns.
So a computer gets the same results in a different way. It does not see and it does not interpret.
A computer may exceed humans but only because it functions differently.

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am Yet it is fairly common for computer experts to say that a computer sees. That is wishful thinking.
It is not wishful thinking - it's a fact... and it wont be long before computers see much better than humans ever will (if thats not the case already).

A human body is not more than a highly evolved organic machine. It is in no way special, "godlike" or in any other way magical.
The belief that "I, the human body" am so much more evolved than anything else that walks the earth is not more than a pretentious idea. Human bodies are not special, they are made of the same basic elements everything else in this universe is made of. They are not better or worse - they are equal to everything else in creation.
The human body is to a large extent biomechanical (conditional)and thus has a comparison to a computer which is conditional. Buit consciousness is not biomechanical. It's interpretive while a computer is completely conditional.


AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am Emotions have a feeling to awareness. The feeling must come from somewhere. They do. They come from the brain just like senses. What is the source? The source is internal rather than external. What is the source. The state of consciousness. What other state could it be?
What other state? The state of thinking. There are no other states at all - only thought knows of states. Consciousness has no states - it simply IS - full stop.
Believe you are sad - you experience sadness. Believe you are angry - you experience anger.
This doesn't mean that these emotions exist on their own. They are always a combination of thought and simple, physical sensations. The conviction that "I am sad" creates the "emotion" - a mixup of basic physical sensation and interpretative thought.
You state some observations about emotions but not how they formed in the brain. I did.
Last edited by jayjacobus on Mon May 07, 2018 12:42 pm, edited 4 times in total.
jayjacobus
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by jayjacobus »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 12:35 pm
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
Add a camera and some pattern matching algorithm and it does.
That's apples and oranges. People see. Computers process.
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
Yes... so does the eye...
Light falls on the light-sensitive cells of the retina (=photoreceptors) and are converted into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve and interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer does exactly the same when it sees and interprets the environment (see self driving cars, robots etc)
[/quote]

What you should have said:
Light falls on the light-sensitive cells of the retina (=photoreceptors) and are converted into electrical signals that are transmitted to the brain by the optic nerve, the brain creates images which are interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer on the other hand creates numerical patterns which are matched to existing patterns.
So a computer gets the same results in a different way. It does not see and it does not interpret.
A computer may exceed humans but only because it functions differently.

AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am {quote=jayjacobus post_id=358249 time=1525686250 user_id=11868]
Yet it is fairly common for computer experts to say that a computer sees. That is wishful thinking.
It is not wishful thinking - it's a fact... and it wont be long before computers see much better than humans ever will (if thats not the case already).

A human body is not more than a highly evolved organic machine. It is in no way special, "godlike" or in any other way magical.
The belief that "I, the human body" am so much more evolved than anything else that walks the earth is not more than a pretentious idea. Human bodies are not special, they are made of the same basic elements everything else in this universe is made of. They are not better or worse - they are equal to everything else in creation.
[/quote]

The human body is to a large extent biomechanical (conditional)and thus has a comparison to a computer which is conditional. Buit consciousness is not biomechanical. It's interpretive while a computer is completely conditional.

[/quote
AlexW wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 11:37 am
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:44 am Emotions have a feeling to awareness. The feeling must come from somewhere. They do. They come from the brain just like senses. What is the source? The source is internal rather than external. What is the source. The state of consciousness. What other state could it be?
What other state? The state of thinking. There are no other states at all - only thought knows of states. Consciousness has no states - it simply IS - full stop.
Believe you are sad - you experience sadness. Believe you are angry - you experience anger.
This doesn't mean that these emotions exist on their own. They are always a combination of thought and simple, physical sensations. The conviction that "I am sad" creates the "emotion" - a mixup of basic physical sensation and interpretative thought.
You state some observations about emotions but not how they formed in the brain. I did.
[/quote]
[/quote]
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

AlexW wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 9:32 amThank you for explaining :-)
The way I see it, anything that can be used to "prove things themselves" can ultimately not be true.
Maybe they are wrong, you're just not allowed to make that case within our current understanding of logic, because they ARE that understanding. The very statement 'can ultimately not be true' affirms the law of non-contradiction in itself, as it presents a dichotomy between truth and non-truth. Of course, you could then say that I'm presupposing the law of non-contradiction in order to prove against your claim that it's not true, but then I will just throw the same argument back at you.

This is why we can have the highest level of confidence that something like the 'law of identity' or the 'law of non-contradiction' are true, because they are the highest level of intuitive truth. They can't be disproven, because you'll quickly find yourself feeling like you need to use the rules of them in any attempt to; There's more than one parallel to be drawn, here, between that and our understanding of our own existence. If we conceive whether we're actually conscious, that in itself proves that we are, at least to ourselves.
How could it? Truth is before all things. It doesn't know of separation and as such things are perfectly alien to it.
You talk about 'truth' like it's a cosmic entity in the marvel comics. It's not an actual 'thing', it's a description of something.
What I am saying is that if one believes that he/she is a separate self that is conscious (has consciousness) then it would be logical that one should be able to find this entity, this separate self. Would you agree?
I don't agree, because I don't think what you're saying makes legible sense. It's probably because you don't accept the laws of thought.

I mean, should I be able to roll my eyes to the back of my head and see my own brain in action? What do you mean, 'find the entity (that has consciousness)?' That seems like mumbo jumbo to me.
Haha... well, you said "The process of even raising that question validates (to yourself) the idea that you are conscious."
and my answer to your statement is "No, it only validates consciousness, but not a self."
There is a big difference between the statement "you are conscious" and "you are consciousness"
The latter points to the non-dual understanding that there is only consciousness and that there can be no you (no self) that is conscious. Thats why I said what I said...
Well I think that one has consciousness, not that one is consciousness. But it seems like you interchangeably used conscious and consciousness at several times so why are you just now making such a differentiation between the two?
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by AlexW »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 12:36 pm That's apples and oranges. People see. Computers process.
Well... both are fruit, both have a skin and flesh and taste nice - it doesn't have to be the exact same process to have a very similar result.
Brains also process electrical signals and create pictures out of zeros and ones (which are nothing but electrical charge)... very similar to what a computer does.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 12:36 pm the brain creates images which are interpreted as sight and vision.
A computer on the other hand creates numerical patterns which are matched to existing patterns.
The brain also matches patterns that are identified within the electrical signal received from the eyes with previously learned patterns - we wouldn't know that an apple is and apple and an orange is an orange if we wouldn't have learned to recognise and match the pattern. Human interpretation, on the level of vision, is pretty much exactly the same as a pattern matching algorithm in a computer.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 12:36 pm But consciousness is not biomechanical. It's interpretive while a computer is completely conditional.
I think you are mixing up consciousness and thought. Consciousness doesn't interpret anything - only thought can do that.
jayjacobus wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 12:36 pm You state some observations about emotions but not how they formed in the brain. I did.
I explained how they form, let me repeat:
Believe you are sad - you experience sadness. Believe you are angry - you experience anger.
This doesn't mean that these emotions exist on their own. They are always a combination of thought and simple, physical sensations. The conviction that "I am sad" creates the "emotion" - a mixup of basic physical sensation and interpretative thought.


The conclusion is: They never form as such. They are only a combination of thought and physical sensations. Combine these parts and we seem to experience something different, but on closer investigation one finds that the conglomerate is actually nothing else but a mix of basic ingredients - nothing magical.

You said "emotions form in the brain" without really looking at what they are.
Yes, a part of it, the thought-part, apparently forms in the brain (some believe that the brain doesn't think but only receives thoughts like a radio... who knows... doesn't matter anyway) - there is another part, which are physical sensations. Take one part away and the emotion is gone.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by AlexW »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:36 pm Maybe they are wrong, you're just not allowed to make that case within our current understanding of logic,
Well, the problem is we attempt to find answers to questions like "Could a Robot be Conscious?" - where the only true answer is outside our current understanding of logic.
Now we have two options, we either remain inside our mind-made, logical confines or we open ourselves to something beyond our rigid way of thinking.
We can discuss consciousness, infinity, reality, truth, eternity, god etc.. forever using "our current understanding of logic" but it will never lead us to the final answer. The final answer includes the destruction of the question because within the new understanding (of the non dual) our current logic makes absolutely no sense.
We have built our current understanding of logic on the belief in separation - a belief that is untrue. Now we attempt to describe the non-dual from within the mindset of duality - that is an impossibility.

The question "Could a Robot be Conscious?" can as such be discussed within the laws of thought that you have mentioned, but it will never be answered. The only real answer comes from the non-dual ground of being.
The beautiful thing is that an answer that emerges from non-dual understanding can be applied within duality (whereas this is impossible the other way round).
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:36 pm You talk about 'truth' like it's a cosmic entity in the marvel comics. It's not an actual 'thing', it's a description of something.
No, its not a description (and not an entity).
It's what you (and everything else) IS. Truth is reality. It is undivided, has no opposites and expresses itself through knowing (itself).
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:36 pm I don't agree, because I don't think what you're saying makes legible sense. It's probably because you don't accept the laws of thought.
If the laws of thought state I have to believe whatever thought tells me even my direct experience tells me something completely different then I am happy to ignore these laws of thought. Maybe have a look if what thought tells you about seeing, hearing, feeling... is really reflected in your direct experience...
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 10:36 pm I mean, should I be able to roll my eyes to the back of my head and see my own brain in action? What do you mean, 'find the entity (that has consciousness)?' That seems like mumbo jumbo to me.
Well... you state "I am conscious!"
Wouldn't it be logical that one should be able to find this "I" or the "consciousness" that it apparently owns?
I am not asking you to roll back you eyes and look at your brain - simply look straight ahead and see what is really there. Ignore what thought is saying about seeing and have an honest investigation... I think its worth a try, its your life and living it based on acquired belief, without ever really checking if it is true, is cheating yourself.
commonsense
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Could a Robot be Conscious?

Post by commonsense »

AlexW wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 9:02 am No animal or human IS conscious - simply because consciousness can not be owned by an object (or subject), it is not divided into pieces and allotted to individuals. Its rather the opposite, all apparent individuals ARE consciousness (on the level of consciousness there are as such no separate individuals - they only exist on the dualistic level of mind).
I know there is only one reality. Accordingly, there can be only one consciousness.

There’s one reality, one consciousness, for all individuals collectively, not individually. In other words, individuals are a part of the whole, i.e. a part of all reality, all consciousness.

Parts of the whole cannot own the whole. An individual cannot be individually conscious because he cannot own consciousness as a whole.

But I want to know what an individual can be. Partially conscious? That is to say an individual is only conscious of a segment of reality. But this infers that there can be partial consciousness when consciousness is universal.

Perhaps so. Perhaps so.
Post Reply