This is how AI "Sees" our world:

[Trajk Logik]

I'll try to make my point again.

An individual's unique intellect or perspective is Unlimited. However he needs to communicate an idea to another person, who may have far greater or far less IQ than him. Those with far greater IQ, will be able to understand, accept, and recognize greater conceptions and thoughts in Quality and Quantity than others. So the basis for understanding is in the different intellectual quotients between individuals.

This is what was referred to as 'Sentience'. Animals have low IQ. Humans have high IQ. Humans can 'know', learn, or understand things that animals cannot and do not. AI systems may have high IQ, and higher than many Humans now. Therefore, it should follow that AI can 'know', learn, or understand things that Humans cannot and do not. And this tends to be the case in how AI out-performs, or performs unexpectedly in tasks given or programmed by its programmers.

Language having a 'shade' or 'color' refers to the limitations of expressing ideas between IQ quotients.

All you are doing is moving goal-posts. First it's about how language limits our perceptions of the world. Then it was about how languages are better at conveying certain ideas NOT that it prevents people from understanding or translating them. And now it has nothing to do with language at all, but one's IQ.

What language would you use, trying to teach a monkey to count numbers? You will likely need to communicate not textually, but through motions and demonstrations. However, the mathematical concepts are definitely limited. The understanding between the communication, would also be highly limited.

Language is the expression of these limitations. Blacking out a pair of sunglasses, so no light gets through, or having color gradients, are also limitations. When applying this analogy to understanding through communication, this means that some languages are Superior or Inferior to others, and that, far 'baser' forms of communication maybe required.

We can communicate via smoke-signals, or morse-code, to demonstrate such limitations.

This is stupid. It's like asking an elephant to show you how to use your trunk to drink water. The limitations are in our physiology, not in our language. Again, you are talking about the limitations of brains, not of languages, or symbol-use.

ANY symbol can be used to represent ANY idea or perception. NOT ANY brain can perceive of and interpret the world in the same way. Our senses and brains impose more limitations on our perceptions of the world than language could ever hope to.

Your point that it "does not change the individual thought itself, the thing" ignores that the 'thing' changes via communication, by the limits of communication. Two IQs, of the same level, may understand the same thing, and communicate effortlessly in a way that 'agrees' to it, but it is always a Presupposition, an Implication, a Guess or Estimation that they were actually referring to the "same thing", same occurrence, same pattern, same object, or that their understanding was in anyway remotely similar.

Communication is Intuitive, as a result, on a core level. There are many ideas that simply cannot be 'communicated', because of these limits.

Nonsense. If communication changes the thing we are communicating how can we ever know that we are talking about the same thing from moment to moment if each time we talk about it it changes?

Any idea can be communicated because symbol-use is arbitrary. We create new words for new inventions and discoveries. If our language limited our perceptions then we would never be able to have new experiences, discoveries, or invent new things.

[Trajk Logik]

What does 'self-identity' entail? If AI can refer to itself in conversation, then does it not have some sense of 'self-identity'? Can't 'self-awareness' come in degrees, like a dimmer switch, rather than just either on or off?

I believe most Self-Identity refers to biological memories. People self-identify by their memories in life. Until robots can have 'memories', or they can be artificially programmed and mimicked, then robots and AI cannot have a sufficient Self-Identity. However, programmers can code false memories and identities. An AI might be named 'Bob', with the lived memories and life-experiences of a human named Bob.

The AI would be 'convinced' of its life and memories, in the exact same way Human Bob is also convinced of his life and memories.

The difference is that the AI does not have an organic, human body. It does not have actual experiences, actual flesh and blood, actual memories. The memories are copied, or installed into it.

An AI Self-Identity would be purely Synthetic, until a body/chasis/robot is made for it, and a name given to it, to produce "it's own" experiences and memories.

What does organic vs. inorganic have to do with it? What is it about the nature of biological structures that bestows consciousness where inorganic structures do not? Why isn't your liver or bladder conscious?

You computer possesses memory, both long-term and short-term (working memory). So, if it possesses memory with information about itself and it's relation to the world, how does that not entail self-awareness?

If we can image a brain in a vat that is conscious, then how is a computer not a brain in a box that can be conscious?

Who here, aside from Seeds, is claiming that sight requires consciousness?

When light strikes photoelectric sensors, or photosensitive nerve endings, and converts light into electrical impulses, that is seeing.

Exactly. Seeing entails using the information in reflected light in your environment to create a visual model of your environment that you can use for some purpose. In this sense, an AI can see if it had a camera connected to it.

Who here, aside from Seeds, is claiming that sight requires consciousness?

Atto.

When light strikes photoelectric sensors, or photosensitive nerve endings, and converts light into electrical impulses, that is seeing.

AI sees nothing. A computer cannot see. Thus when light strikes photoelectric sensors all that is happening is that each frequency of light is converted to zeros and ones. These zeros and ones make up a colour palette that can be rendered from the graphics memory to the screen for US humans to actually see. From the pixel at the top left of your computer screen to the pixel at the bottom right, each pixel is VRAM being rendered - zeros and ones - color= thus #BF0000 is: 10111111 00000000 00000000 (24 bits)

And how is that any different than a having an eye connected to a brain that sends electrical pulses through neurons? How do neurons generate your visual experience? If we cut open your brain, why do we not see your visual experience, and why would you not then apply that answer to why we don't see a computer's visual experience when we open the box, but only if we connect a monitor to the computer so it can output it's visual experiences for your viewing pleasure?

In what way would a blind person that has cameras that look like eyes implanted and connected to their brain so that they could see be different than how you see with your eyes? How is it that we can now connect brains to computers to control them with our thoughts if how computers and brains process information is so different?

[seeds]

Who here, aside from Seeds, is claiming that sight requires consciousness?

Indeed it does.

And that would be in the same way that sound requires consciousness.

Hence, the proverbial tree falling in the forest makes no sound without the presence of some form of consciousness to explicate it (the sound) from the waves (or fields) of quantum information that underpin the occurrence.

I suggest that just as the die, the key, and the paperclip in the laser hologram...



...could not materialize into their specific 3-D forms were it not for the conjoined relationship between the laser (a metaphor for consciousness) and that of the correlated patterns of information encoded in the photographic plate (a metaphor for the quantum realm),...

...likewise, neither could the phenomenal features of the universe materialize into their specific 3-D forms were it not for the conjoined relationship between some form of consciousness and that of the correlated patterns (fields) of information that comprise the coded underpinning of matter.

And just to be a little more concise about all of this,...

...I suggest that whatever the mental mechanism is that allows us to explicate the multifarious features of our dreams into 3-D existence (from noumena-into-phenomena) whenever we direct our consciousness inward,...

...is the same mental mechanism that allows us to explicate the multifarious features of the universe into 3-D existence (again, from noumena-into-phenomena) whenever we direct our consciousness outward.
_______

[attofishpi]

Who here, aside from Seeds, is claiming that sight requires consciousness?

Atto.

When light strikes photoelectric sensors, or photosensitive nerve endings, and converts light into electrical impulses, that is seeing.

AI sees nothing. A computer cannot see. Thus when light strikes photoelectric sensors all that is happening is that each frequency of light is converted to zeros and ones. These zeros and ones make up a colour palette that can be rendered from the graphics memory to the screen for US humans to actually see. From the pixel at the top left of your computer screen to the pixel at the bottom right, each pixel is VRAM being rendered - zeros and ones - color= thus #BF0000 is: 10111111 00000000 00000000 (24 bits)

And how is that any different than a having an eye connected to a brain that sends electrical pulses through neurons? How do neurons generate your visual experience?

So you are asking me to explain consciousness - something that no scientist has managed to do as yet.

Even worse, you are comparing a pile of electronic switches (a computer) that represent a colour to consiouss experience of a colour, thus clearly I am dealing with an idiot. One day the likes of you will be out in mass protests demanding robots have the same rights as humans, since clearly you are already fooled. Just think, the moment someone connects a compoooter to a tractor you might then start demanding equal rights for tractors.

[Wizard22]

What does organic vs. inorganic have to do with it? What is it about the nature of biological structures that bestows consciousness where inorganic structures do not? Why isn't your liver or bladder conscious?

You computer possesses memory, both long-term and short-term (working memory). So, if it possesses memory with information about itself and it's relation to the world, how does that not entail self-awareness?

If we can image a brain in a vat that is conscious, then how is a computer not a brain in a box that can be conscious?

Consciousness, as we (Humans) know it, is purely a function of the (evolved) brain and nervous system. The brain acts as a parasite upon the body's blood supply, supplying it oxygen and nutrients. All the organs in the body are for the sustenance of the entire body, defense, health, mass, maneuverability, etc. Consciousness is biological, because up to this point, it is entirely dependent upon a biological body to be and exist.

Consciousness is the 'extension' of the body. Just as AI is another extension, of Human Consciousness, and thereby, of biology.

[Trajk Logik]

And how is that any different than a having an eye connected to a brain that sends electrical pulses through neurons? How do neurons generate your visual experience?

So you are asking me to explain consciousness - something that no scientist has managed to do as yet.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Wittgenstein

Yet you are declaring what has consciousness and what doesn't. If you can't explain it, particularly about how it comes about from a physical brain with neurons, electricity and hormones, then how can you then go on to say that a computer definitely and absolutely does not have it? Does a jellyfish have it? What about ants, hummingbirds, cows and monkeys? Some scientists say it is an illusion. How do you know you have it? If an AI can be programmed to say it is conscious, how do we know you haven't been programmed to say the same thing and you're really a p-zombie? Are blind people conscious?

These are not rhetorical questions. We need these questions answered to then go on to say that we have a better grasp of what consciousness is and how it comes about. If you don't want to even try then be silent. Shhhhh.

Even worse, you are comparing a pile of electronic switches (a computer) that represent a colour to consiouss experience of a colour, thus clearly I am dealing with an idiot. One day the likes of you will be out in mass protests demanding robots have the same rights as humans, since clearly you are already fooled. Just think, the moment someone connects a compoooter to a tractor you might then start demanding equal rights for tractors.

Again you avoid answering the necessary questions that would support what you're actually saying because at the moment you have no evidence to support anything you have said here. All you do is keep repeating the same dribble with no regard for the questions being asked to make sense of what you have said. This is effectively what you are doing:

[attofishpi]

And how is that any different than a having an eye connected to a brain that sends electrical pulses through neurons? How do neurons generate your visual experience?

So you are asking me to explain consciousness - something that no scientist has managed to do as yet.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Wittgenstein

Yet you are declaring what has consciousness and what doesn't. If you can't explain it, particularly about how it comes about from a physical brain with neurons, electricity and hormones, then how can you then go on to say that a computer definitely and absolutely does not have it?

I know I have consciousness and can actually SEE variations in colour, I can't explain what ultimately is my soul in the arrangement of atoms as to how I have qualia with five senses. Its accepted that humans have consciousness and thus sentience.

I've explained how a machine full of switches (a compooter) represents colour, thus does not SEE anything. You are the forum idiot that is claiming that a computer can SEE, so the onus is on you to explain how a computer can actually see. Go ahead.