Genady

deleted - the previous responses are better

Now I imagine billions of programs. Not for calculating pi, but for acting in billions of situations in my physical and social environment, each one unpredictable until it actually happens. I get an adult human.

That shows that "I am determining the design. The resulting behavior can be unpredictable." I don't think the word "volition" has been in the discussion so far. Other words, yes, but not this one.

Look at that formula. It has an infinite sum. It is not kind of formula that you can plug in N and get the N-th digit back. To get the N-th digit you have to run that sum calculation long enough and only then see the answer. You cannot predict the answer any other way.

Take a simple program that calculates the number pi. It is impossible to predict what it will produce for the N-th digit without actually running it until it produces that digit.

No, I am determining the design. The resulting behavior can be unpredictable. The only way to determine the behavior in such designs is to run the machine or to imitate its running, and to watch what happens.

That just means that what you call "programming" is the same that I call "design." Intentionality means reference and reference means intentionality. Sounds circular to me. Anyway, my thoughts refer to concepts in my mind.

It does not have to be programmed. It can be all "hardware". That's what I said, "we can design and build a machine" that behaves this way. This is a circular argument. Can you break it down?

If we want, we can design and build a machine that once started will go on by itself until its natural death. They are all illusions. +1

They are designed to be controlled. It is so on purpose.

Wait a minute. The whole wide field of "artificial devices" turns to be a narrow field of digital computers? Does the title of the thread actually mean, "Conscious computer is impossible"?

Do you mean, your article? By the rules of the forum, all discussions have to be conducted with no need to go outside. As a former programmer, I don't know what it is. Is it a riddle?

Do you mean that assuming a conscious machine leads to a contradiction?

Yes, I understand. The criteria is, that there is no law that forbids an artificial device to be conscious. Thus, there is no law that makes a conscious artificial device an impossibility.

Allowing it to be conscious does not mean that it is conscious. It means that a conscious artificial device is not impossible.

I never asked about criteria for consciousness. I asked about consciousness of an artificial device being allowed or forbidden by any law of nature. Of course, my answer is that it is not forbidden. And that was what I said in my very first post in this thread.

Oh, I did not realize that you want MY answer to this question. The question is not moot, and my answer is clear: there is no known law of nature that forbids toilet seat to be conscious.

If there is a law that forbids a toilet seat to be conscious, it will not answer my question because it will leave open a possibility that some other artificial device might be conscious.

This is not enough. Putting more formally, a law of nature that forbids existence of any conscious artificial device?

... an artificial device ...

So, what did you find out for answer to my question, Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificial device to have consciousness?

Here is the difference: you are curious if a catapult and your toilet seat are conscious, but I am not curious about this. I am curious, if there is a law of nature that forbids any of them to be conscious?

You assume that they attempted to produce a conscious device. But I don't assume this. They produce a device that does something else. We are just curious, Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

The question of how to know if the catapult, or other device, is or isn't conscious may come later. If there is a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness, then we know that it is not conscious, and the 'how' question is irrelevant. That is why the first question is: Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

They build a device with whatever knowledge they have. Like people build computers, networks, quantum computers, space stations, Mars probes, etc. They build what they can. So, somebody builds a device the best they could. It does something. They know that they don't have a complete model, but they have a question: Is there a law of nature that forbids this device to have consciousness?