Beautiful exploration of the base-level building blocks of the sentient experience, yet the notion of consciousness has to happen at a more fundamental level still. I abide by the kantian phenomenology described here, yet the blind spot that isn't explained therein, relates to the ground state that precedes perception, and which constitutes the very basic sensation of reality. Before integration, before composition... we sense in a non-declarative manner, that we are real, that the world is real. This is what consciousness is ; everything beyond that is perception/cognition/concept. Roger Penrose's powerful idea in this respect, is that the Universe manifests its realness by virtue of the constant, omnipresent collapse of the quantum wave function : The Universe 'becomes' real at all moments when its constituent waves adopt a definite state. So 'reality' isn't produced by our brains - it would be an illusion - it is exogenous and we merely perceive it. Now, Penrose's idea is that there is a ground-level perceptron, subtending everything else in our existential experience, that 'senses' the realness of the Universe. A unidimensional phenomenon upon which it becomes possible to be alive and to not be alone in this regard. Reality is what makes us as living things, share the most fundamental reference plane that makes us viable. Without this perception of the real, each individual experience would concern a parallel universe and no emergent organisation of life would be possible. This is where AI pundits get it wrong. They conflate intelligence, information processing, with consciousness. Consciousness is a sense ; the sense that 'feels' the realness of the Universe. In technology, anything that is a sense, must be based on a transducer and a metric. Transducers convert a physical phenomenon into a quantified metric (in digital systems, numerical). How could we craft a 'collapse of the wave function' transducer ? I am doubtful we could, but let's imagine that in the distant future, this becomes possible ; for consciousness to occur in an artificial neural network, the entire architecture of perception would have to be rooted in the baseline sensor ; this means that when this sensor would be switched off, the creature would lose the ability to connect its processes to the outside world and it would be stuck in a self-less, disjunct dream state. The machine would lose any singularity ; its "thoughts" would be 'experienceless' and lacking all manner of intention (in the sense of Husserl). This is very much the current state of these machines, however good they are at processing data; all the AI machines today present a mass of neural parts, none of which has an individuality ; conceptually speaking they exist as variants of the same automation space ; all machines make up one virtual machine. This is where living things differ : When we are alive, we are no longer purely virtual ; we are actualized and become individuals. The beautiful paradox is, that through these individualities, we are all connected by one phenomenon, reality. To the opposite, because machines have no sense of reality, they are disconnected from the universe, and as such, occupy one amorphous, undefined, aimless process space. Today's AI machines are no more sentient than a hammer or a shovel ; they are tools, extensions of our own intent, even when the design of the tool is focused on language or complex task processing.
Beautiful exploration of the base-level building blocks of the sentient experience, yet the notion of consciousness has to happen at a more fundamental level still. I abide by the kantian phenomenology described here, yet the blind spot that isn't explained therein, relates to the ground state that precedes perception, and which constitutes the very basic sensation of reality. Before integration, before composition... we sense in a non-declarative manner, that we are real, that the world is real. This is what consciousness is ; everything beyond that is perception/cognition/concept. Roger Penrose's powerful idea in this respect, is that the Universe manifests its realness by virtue of the constant, omnipresent collapse of the quantum wave function : The Universe 'becomes' real at all moments when its constituent waves adopt a definite state. So 'reality' isn't produced by our brains - it would be an illusion - it is exogenous and we merely perceive it. Now, Penrose's idea is that there is a ground-level perceptron, subtending everything else in our existential experience, that 'senses' the realness of the Universe. A unidimensional phenomenon upon which it becomes possible to be alive and to not be alone in this regard. Reality is what makes us as living things, share the most fundamental reference plane that makes us viable. Without this perception of the real, each individual experience would concern a parallel universe and no emergent organisation of life would be possible. This is where AI pundits get it wrong. They conflate intelligence, information processing, with consciousness. Consciousness is a sense ; the sense that 'feels' the realness of the Universe. In technology, anything that is a sense, must be based on a transducer and a metric. Transducers convert a physical phenomenon into a quantified metric (in digital systems, numerical). How could we craft a 'collapse of the wave function' transducer ? I am doubtful we could, but let's imagine that in the distant future, this becomes possible ; for consciousness to occur in an artificial neural network, the entire architecture of perception would have to be rooted in the baseline sensor ; this means that when this sensor would be switched off, the creature would lose the ability to connect its processes to the outside world and it would be stuck in a self-less, disjunct dream state. The machine would lose any singularity ; its "thoughts" would be 'experienceless' and lacking all manner of intention (in the sense of Husserl). This is very much the current state of these machines, however good they are at processing data; all the AI machines today present a mass of neural parts, none of which has an individuality ; conceptually speaking they exist as variants of the same automation space ; all machines make up one virtual machine. This is where living things differ : When we are alive, we are no longer purely virtual ; we are actualized and become individuals. The beautiful paradox is, that through these individualities, we are all connected by one phenomenon, reality. To the opposite, because machines have no sense of reality, they are disconnected from the universe, and as such, occupy one amorphous, undefined, aimless process space. Today's AI machines are no more sentient than a hammer or a shovel ; they are tools, extensions of our own intent, even when the design of the tool is focused on language or complex task processing.
sir this is a wendys
First one has to be 5-MeO-DMT