Could a Robot be Conscious?

[AlexW]

I know there is only one reality. Accordingly, there can be only one consciousness.

Agree! And as such they are one and the same.

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.

Pretty close
Only that consciousness is not for individuals (not even collectively), individuals are consciousness.
This is a subtle, but still substantial difference as one view highlights individuals, collectively making up/creating the whole, whereas the other point of view (the non dual understanding) is that there is only consciousness and individuals are only appearances in it (and as such never real in the ultimate sense)

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.

An individual can be (or rather is) an acquired, conditioned thought pattern.
The individual is as such never conscious, not even of a segment of reality - the individual is only a collection of thoughts/ideas/beliefs and thoughts are not conscious, they are known by (appear in) consciousness.

There is no partial consciousness, all parts are mind made.
You can look at it like you would at a dream. In the dream you believe you are the dream character. You see, hear, think, feel... There is a whole universe around you. But in reality You are the dreamer and as such the whole dream. The character is just as much part of the dream as the car, the tree... whatever appears in the dream. Looking at a dream it is obvious that the dream-character itself is not conscious - he is not the dreamer/knower - You are.

[Dontaskme]

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

The brain is the mechanism whereby there is knowledge you exist, the brain interprets sound from the vocal cords and these sounds are heard as words interpreted as having attached meaning artificially creating the idea there is a you living life, that has been born and will die..but this is just a product of knowledge, it's a mental construction, it does not exist in the real world which is awareness without an object.

Consciousness cannot leave itself, neither can it be more of itself...it is everything one without a second. It is infinity for eternity here right now, not going anywhere, and not coming from anything, it's just THIS.

Take away all knowledge and what's HERE? ... there is nothing HERE but pure aware aliveness that has no knowledge of what it is, or why it is, or where it came from.

When the experiencing structure is not manipulating consciousness giving reality to objects, feelings and experiences, believing they are real by translating them in terms of accumulated knowledge, then what is reality?

You only know in relation to the knowledge you have. Knowledge is the illusory add on to what is already HERE..knowledge created division that is not there.


As consciousness there is a total absence of any division into wakeful, dreaming, and deep sleep states. The brain is an appearance in consciousness, creating characters within itself, but these characters have no separate existence in and of themselves separate from consciousness, the characters are totally dependant on consciousness ...But consciousness is not dependant on the brain because consciousness is always and ever reality without an object.

For example: a tree exists but is doesn't need to have a brain to exist, same goes for a blade of grass, it doesn't need a brain to exist. What knows existence is knowledge, but existence is not dependant on knowledge to exist...existence is prior to knowing it exists, and knowing it exists is knowledge...upon this prior not-a-thing existence ...which is unavailable to us, we cannot experience the world of things directly, we can only be aware of them...because that's all we are...we are consciousness without beginning nor end.


So whatever it is you think you experience is thought induced.Without knowledge you can't experience, and experience strengthens the knowledge giving continuity and autonomy to your individuality. But all the individual is ..is a product of knowledge, a superimposed illusory character upon consciousness, aka the contents of consciousness itself which is not-a-thing...appearing as all things.



.

[Dontaskme]

This is how I see it from my perspective

There is existence as there always has been and always will be

This is known..it's knowledge.
You already have to be first in order for this knowledge to become known. You are essentially prior to the knowledge of yourself. You have to be in order to know anything.
There is no separate knower of the known...so you are in effect existence itself that has always been and always will be.

When human beings are born they become aware of existence

A human being is an appearance, a character known aka knowledge...in existence that always has been and always will be. The character has no independent existence of it's own, it's an idea, superimposed upon what is already here..aka consciousness. Characters are not aware of anything, they are not separate from that which is already aware of them, and what is aware of them is consciousness, the only awareness there is in existence.

And when they die then they are no longer aware of existence

Characters cannot be aware...and the awareness of the characters cannot die, or become unaware...because to become unaware, you would have to be there in an unaware state to experience the state of unawareness, which is impossible....so there can only be awareness which is what you are. You are not the object of awareness but awareness itself. What ever appears in awareness is knowledge known, and knowledge can be absent like in sleep or under anesthesia, but that does not mean awareness is absent, for awareness has to be the constant unchanging reality for any knowledge to become known. In other words, awareness cannot be snuffed out, only knowledge can be snuffed out. But what is ever more surprising is that even the knowledge does not die, for it will always resurface when there is a demand for it.

But existence carries on existing whether anyone or anything knows it does

Only because it is known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness which does not come in and out of existence, only thoughts do that, and thoughts have no reality to them whatsoever...except as they are believed to exist...take away the thought, and the belief in that thought and reality is the same as it ever was, without an object.

The only difference between us is you talk of consciousness while I talk of existence

Words are basically misleading in that they can mean so many things to different minds, and word will never capture reality as it actually is...words will only be a representational interpretation of what is only and ever a not-knowing presentation.

.

[surreptitious57]

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

[jayjacobus]

So, that what we call consciousness, under that scenario, is not manifested (or only manifested weakly) in some things and is strongly manifested in humans. In fact humans are the masters at manifesting this consciousness. But then computers are not manifested at all or only weakly manifested.

We as humans are only aware of consciousness because we are strongly manifested or so this theory goes.

But how do we know that we are a part of a whole consciousness or the whole is the sum of the parts (ie, each human is conscious by himself)?

[QuantumT]

The simplest description of consciousness is: Being aware you exist.

Can a machine achieve that? I can't see why not. It's just a matter of programming.

[jayjacobus]

The simplest description of consciousness is: Being aware you exist.

Can a machine achieve that? I can't see why not. It's just a matter of programming.

It's more than programming, The computer expert can bring audio and visual signals to where he wants consciousness to be but he has no idea how to get computer consciousness to hear sounds and see images. Nor does he know how to make computer consciousness think rather than process.

[Impenitent]

visual signals... it's dark, I think I'll turn on a light

it's dark, the robotic sensor "sees" the signal and turns on a light

if you didn't see how the illumination began, would your assumption that someone consciously decided it be correct?

-Imp

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

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.

It's really not, anymore than trying to find out whether other people are conscious.

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.

I don't think you actually grasp what I mean by 'our current understanding'. The fact that you're even forming coherent sentences shows to most people with an adequately functional brain that you're using that understanding, right now.

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.

That's not even what I'm saying; I definitely don't want you to think that. I merely made the point that our own consciousness seems to be as certain as the laws of thought.

No, its not a description (and not an entity).
It's what you (and everything else) IS. Truth is reality.

I mean, my 3rd grade knowledge is a little rusty, here...but I'm still gonna go ahead and say that truth is a word for describing something.

It is undivided, has no opposites and expresses itself through knowing (itself)

...False.

Truth knows how to express itself? I hope it doesn't act out in public like my younger nephew.

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...

That's not what they say, but if you really deny basic fundamental truths like "A = A" or "Not-A =/= A", then you have no place on a philosophy forum.

The point I was making is that I personally don't understand what you're trying to say. I see consciousness as an attribute to myself. Asking me to find the separate 'I' inside of myself makes as much sense to me as 'fjfjhdjfh'. Or saying that something can be A, while also not being A, or that X can exist, while also not exist - which is apparently a position you take by proxy, considering your flexible acceptance of the laws of thought.

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.

I am, and I see a guy who is saying some really dumb shit.

[jayjacobus]

visual signals... it's dark, I think I'll turn on a light

it's dark, the robotic sensor "sees" the signal and turns on a light

if you didn't see how the illumination began, would your assumption that someone consciously decided it be correct?

-Imp

It's hard to "see" dark. Dark is a reference to no light waves. In fact all the senses are references. Sound is a set of references to vibrations. Sight is a set of references to light waves. Pain is a set of references to injuries. The brain creates all the references and they become sensations. But sensations don't exist in reality.

The computer can detect no light waves but doesn't see dark. Dark is easy to detect but appearances are much harder. A cityscape is nearly impossible because the computer must detect and identify each building, street, traffic and park separately in order to identify NYC vs. Chicago or Miami. A person makes the distinction in a flash.

[AlexW]

The point I was making is that I personally don't understand what you're trying to say. I see consciousness as an attribute to myself.

The simplest description of consciousness is: Being aware you exist.

We as humans are only aware of consciousness because we are strongly manifested or so this theory goes.

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

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:

Consciousness is not an "attribute to yourself".
Consciousness does not "know you exist".
Consciousness is not something a "human can be aware of".

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.
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).
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.

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).

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.

[Impenitent]

visual signals... it's dark, I think I'll turn on a light

it's dark, the robotic sensor "sees" the signal and turns on a light

if you didn't see how the illumination began, would your assumption that someone consciously decided it be correct?

-Imp

It's hard to "see" dark. Dark is a reference to no light waves. In fact all the senses are references. Sound is a set of references to vibrations. Sight is a set of references to light waves. Pain is a set of references to injuries. The brain creates all the references and they become sensations. But sensations don't exist in reality.

The computer can detect no light waves but doesn't see dark. Dark is easy to detect but appearances are much harder. A cityscape is nearly impossible because the computer must detect and identify each building, street, traffic and park separately in order to identify NYC vs. Chicago or Miami. A person makes the distinction in a flash.

that wasn't the question

it's dark- a light comes on - would your assumption that someone consciously decided it (to be on) be correct?

-Imp

[surreptitious57]

But how do we know that we are a part of a whole consciousness or the whole is the sum of the parts ( ie each human is conscious by himself )

The simple answer to that is that we do not know or can not ever know of consciousness beyond our own experience
I think that other human beings are conscious but only they can experience their own consciousness and no one else
I do not think that the Universe is conscious though because it simply exists without any knowledge of its existence

[jayjacobus]

visual signals... it's dark, I think I'll turn on a light

it's dark, the robotic sensor "sees" the signal and turns on a light

if you didn't see how the illumination began, would your assumption that someone consciously decided it be correct?

-Imp

It's hard to "see" dark. Dark is a reference to no light waves. In fact all the senses are references. Sound is a set of references to vibrations. Sight is a set of references to light waves. Pain is a set of references to injuries. The brain creates all the references and they become sensations. But sensations don't exist in reality.

The computer can detect no light waves but doesn't see dark. Dark is easy to detect but appearances are much harder. A cityscape is nearly impossible because the computer must detect and identify each building, street, traffic and park separately in order to identify NYC vs. Chicago or Miami. A person makes the distinction in a flash.

that wasn't the question

it's dark- a light comes on - would your assumption that someone consciously decided it (to be on) be correct?

-Imp

I don't see a question.

But the point is the computer doesn't see dark. It detects the absence of light waves. Detecting the absence of light waves is not conscious.

[jayjacobus]

visual signals... it's dark, I think I'll turn on a light

it's dark, the robotic sensor "sees" the signal and turns on a light

if you didn't see how the illumination began, would your assumption that someone consciously decided it be correct?

-Imp

It's hard to "see" dark. Dark is a reference to no light waves. In fact all the senses are references. Sound is a set of references to vibrations. Sight is a set of references to light waves. Pain is a set of references to injuries. The brain creates all the references and they become sensations. But sensations don't exist in reality.

The computer can detect no light waves but doesn't see dark. Dark is easy to detect but appearances are much harder. A cityscape is nearly impossible because the computer must detect and identify each building, street, traffic and park separately in order to identify NYC vs. Chicago or Miami. A person makes the distinction in a flash.