Could a Robot be Conscious?

[Walker]

Consciousness, Witnessing and Awareness – Osho
https://o-meditation.com/2010/07/20/con ... ness-osho/
"Question: What is the difference between awareness and witnessing?"

[jayjacobus]

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.

.

Awake is a state and awake is a concept. If consciousness is not a state, then consciousness is not a concept.

[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

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 again

You have 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

Awareness or consciousness could be eternal but minds are not because when the body dies the mind inside it dies too
In the same way that the universe is eternal but life that exists within it will only have a finite existence and also die

Although I said I can accept that awareness exists I now do not think it does only existence
And the difference between the two is that existence does not have to know that it exists

I do not know why it is necessary for the universe to be aware why cannot it just exist without awareness

[bahman]

Brian King says only if some specific conditions are met.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/Co ... _Conscious

Experience is the result of disturbing a mind by motion of matter. The disturbance is the qualia. Therefore we cannot make a conscious being until we understand how to relate a mind to material.

[QuantumT]

Ask yourself: Am I conscious?

If yes, then an artificial being can be conscious!

Why? Because we are AI's!

[HexHammer]

Robots already have low lvl consciousness, it's only a matter of time before they have human lvl consciousness, that be in less that 15 years.

[jayjacobus]

Ask yourself: Am I conscious?

If yes, then an artificial being can be conscious!

Why? Because we are AI's!

That's like asking, "Does a bird fly?"

"If yes then an artificial being can fly."

"Why? Because birds are AI

No. No.

And we are naturally intelligent, not AI.

[jayjacobus]

Robots already have low lvl consciousness, it's only a matter of time before they have human lvl consciousness, that be in less that 15 years.

To be conscious robots would need a soul. Thy have a high level of processing but no consciosness.

[HexHammer]

Robots already have low lvl consciousness, it's only a matter of time before they have human lvl consciousness, that be in less that 15 years.

To be conscious robots would need a soul. Thy have a high level of processing but no consciosness.

That's strange, throughout history people have lost their soul, yet still are conscious.

[jayjacobus]

Robots already have low lvl consciousness, it's only a matter of time before they have human lvl consciousness, that be in less that 15 years.

To be conscious robots would need a soul. Thy have a high level of processing but no consciosness.

That's strange, throughout history people have lost their soul, yet still are conscious.

"Lost their soul" is a figure of speech. People without an "inner being" couldn't function.

[Dontaskme]

Ask yourself: Am I conscious?

If yes, then an artificial being can be conscious!

Why? Because we are AI's!

Humans are not conscious.

Consciousness is not an experience, consciousness is known by being it, only consciousness is conscious, it's a knowledge known, but it's never been seen.

If a human is not conscious..what hope for a robot?

.

[Dontaskme]

Awareness or consciousness could be eternal but minds are not because when the body dies the mind inside it dies too
In the same way that the universe is eternal but life that exists within it will only have a finite existence and also die

The thing is though...we can't know death, we cannot say we know death, because we don't, we don't even know we are alive, we are life. This is everything living itself, and there is no one to step up and claim it is living life except the idea which is knowledge, making knowledge an illusory thing appearing in timelessness.

To know means to have know-ledge...this knower is a phantom construction created by the brain, and the brain is a conceptual appearance of wholeness, that which is wholeness or everything, aka not-a-thing forever has neither been born or can die.

That which is aware of knowledge has to be the always presence in which knowledge comes and goes, that knowing aspect which is either online or offline just like a computer screen. The light of awareness must be the constant unchanging background, knowledge being at the forefront.

And just because knowledge is offline doesn't mean that it's not there anymore...it has to be always here just like that which is aware of the knowledge. Every conceptual utterance is knowledge, known by the only knowing there is and that is consciousness awareness.

That which is picking up the data via the antenna brain and processing that data is also timeless since it's inseparable from the knowledge. Knowledge is not human made, it's the absolute whole that is manifesting itself right here and now and now and now appearing as everything. It only lives once which is forever..since it is both the unaware awareness without beginning nor end, and the knowing part which comes and goes in that.

I do not know why it is necessary for the universe to be aware why cannot it just exist without awareness

But awareness does exist without knowing...the knower is the phantom created by the brain as not-knowing awareness becomes aware of itself as other, via the imaged imprint it projects outside of itself....as I've pointed out before, during deep dreamless sleep awareness is unaware, but then it can and does come back online via the mind aka the knowing aspect, the mind being an aspect of awareness, the conscious side as opposed to unconscious side ...so without awareness constantly present, there would be no knowledge of anything at all. Knowledge is an appearance of awareness impossible to separate the knower from the known..both exist in the same moment, they are one within each other.

.

[QuantumT]

That's like asking, "Does a bird fly?"

"If yes then an artificial being can fly."

"Why? Because birds are AI

No. No.

Birds ain't AI, they're just A

And we are naturally intelligent, not AI.

You just keep telling yourself that, Mr. Bot

[HexHammer]

"Lost their soul" is a figure of speech. People without an "inner being" couldn't function.

Your expression is misplaced.

[commonsense]

Especially for those who still have a penchant for dualistic thought:

I think if you agree to assume a major premise of non-duality, then you might agree that there is one universe consisting of all reality (all the physical world and all thought, if you need to think dualistically in order to attain a smattering of understanding about non-dualism).

The claims of non-dualism are cohesive. For example, if you hold an apple in your empty hand, you only have one thing in your hand. You are not actually holding a hundred slices of an apple. You are holding one whole apple. Sure, you could slice that apple and say that you hold 100 separate slices of apple in your hand, but that would require doing some slicing, either in the apple’s current state or a priori, which would change the premise that you are holding a normal (unsliced) apple.

You could claim that the apple is holding many individual things—skin, flesh, stem and seeds, for example. But these things are connected to each other either directly or indirectly and they are not existing outside the apple separately. They make up the whole apple. Sure, you could peel and core the apple, cut the seeds out of the flesh, but that would take some peeling, coring and cutting, either in the apple’s current state or a priori, but that would change the premise that you are holding a normal (unpeeled, uncored, uncut) apple.

You could focus on the skin, flesh, stem or seeds of the apple, dissecting your focus down to the sub-particle level, but at each level of focus you would still have the apple containing everything and everything is connected. That is if you agreed to accept the premise that there is one universe (the apple) consisting of all reality (all the slices, the skin, the flesh, the stem and the seeds down to the sub-particle level).

If you insist on continuing to view everything as of either the physical or the non-physical, you just have to allow that the universe contains both. Another way of saying the universe consists of everything is to say that everything is the universe. By that reasoning it is correct to say that consciousness is the universe, for example. Or that the you are the universe. Or that you are consciousness.

If you assume that there is one universe consisting of everything, then you will find that the claims of non-dualism are cohesive. You don’t have to accept that assumption for all time, but, even if just for the argument, you have to accept the premise for now.

If you do not believe the premise and won’t accept its assumption right from the start, you may want to prove that the premise is impossible, or false. You could assert that there are two worlds, the physical and the non-physical. Since there cannot be both one universe and two worlds at the same time, by rule of the excluded middle, you would only have to prove that there are two worlds. More likely, you would find yourself showing that a two-world theory is consistent within itself. That would not show that a two-world theory is true.

So the rightness of the claims made by either dualistic or non-dualistic thought, is dependent on the acceptance of the premise of a conditional argument. If you must, choose only one of them to inform your world view. Either one could be true.