AIkonoklazt

Now apply that to consciousness, and also the state of being alive.

Intelligence has to do with the ability to perform tasks. Thus the term AI. the term "AI" isn't referring to things with intelligence, it's about things doing intelligent-seeming things. Versus consciousness, which is an attribute. It's not an ability. You don't "get better at consciousness". "artificial consciousness" as a term is on a whole other level than "artificial intelligence." That's what I was emphasizing when trying to draw a clear line. Okay, but how do you put gaseous state, liquid state, solid state, and plasma state in terms of that?

A dictionary entry for consciousness states "The state or condition of being conscious." First of all, that's not exactly helpful so I used something from an encyclopedia of philosophy. Second, those two entries are used to distinguish one term from another. Performative intelligence is in a different category than attributive consciousness. Got that? "Full to the brim?" just from stating the necessary and sufficient condition? Hardly. How about you at least look at the "references" section? It's "full to the brim" with supported references, scientific study included. Seems to but not necessarily. The point is to distinguish phenomenal consciousness from whatever other things people call "consciousness." Why can't a slug have a "first slug view" of things? How about this. Does your thought refer to anything at all? If your thoughts don't refer to anything at all then how could you understand any word on your screen right now? If you could, then your mind has "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties, and states of affairs." Now that you're done with the tirade and accusations, We can address the points like a regular discussion. ...right. I know what the differences between the two are, but you haven't given me the answer of why isn't it a state. You basically just going "it's not a state, it's a process!" Okay, why?

What the heck are you talking about? Parse the above in plain English. Are you still roleplaying as an AI like you did earlier, or what? At least that's what I'm getting from the above. Explain to me what you just said. I don't understand. There's no such thing as a machine that "does things on its own." Start with that. That's interesting. However, how would Kemmerer handle people with a condition such as aphantasia? You didn't describe the purported effects of this operation on his sensations. You can literally go anywhere, and I don't know where you're going. There are man-made sensations coming from what and where? Please describe the situation in more depth. How are the sensations artificial? Why isn't it a state? Why isn't it a state?

(gonna try a quick reply before I go to bed) Paragraph-by-paragraph: Does the person have an ability to think about a thing, anything at all? Even if only about a sensation. How about just feeling anything? That doesn't mean you get a complete functional model. There's no such thing as a "complete model" of anything. See terms such as "correlation does not imply causation," "all models are wrong, some are useful," and "the map is not the territory." All of them relate to the underdetermination of scientific theory. Again, no complete modeling of anything. See #2

No you have a crappy robot that hasn't been validated property. See those Teslas that crashed into stationary vehicles? Bad validation. There's a misrepresentation here. Intermediate results are being ignored. You have an entire series of predictable results, until you come upon a bad result. Then you debug. You don't simply place the evaluation of predictability at the end of an infinite chain. Okay, so I don't know where this car is going to be at like a year from now. So that car has a mind of its own? How about shorten that to 6 seconds? 6 milliseconds? Also, it doesn't matter how many programs are there. There were placed there. You have a bazillion programs and suddenly they came from nowhere? Really?

It's only unpredictable in the sense of the final result. When you watch all the digits come out, what do you see? The expected pattern that was calculated before. If it comes out wrong in the end, then you debug. Again, still doesn't show anything about "doing things by itself." You stuck the program for Pi in.

...and that shows volition how?

There were always programs that calculates pi. The expected result is that result. There are several formulas that can be used to calculate the nth digit of pi. One such formula is the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe (BBP) formula.

Of course it's predictable, otherwise there's no such thing as "debug".

Doesn't make one iota of difference. You are still determining behavior. There isn't any volition inherent in the machine. No it's not "circular". Intentionality means "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties, and states of affairs.” Okay, so your thoughts do refer to something after all. Congrats- that's not an "illusion"; That enables you to have thoughts.

You're a software guy so I can't blame you to be blind, but hardware is also programming. I'm a microprocessor circuit layout engineer. Every microscopic positioning, even the lengths of routes, determines timing / delay / etc and thus the behavior. You also forgot microcode. No it's not a "circular argument." Are your thoughts empty of any and all subject? Do your thoughts refer to anything at all? If so, that's intentionality.

It's not "by itself" - You programmed it to do so. Nope, they're not illusory. That's just your copout. If you don't possess intentionality then you can't have this conversation because nothing on this page refers to anything at all.

Physics doesn't account for intentionality. There's no such thing as the color red. It exists absolutely nowhere except in your mind. Physicalism is old hat. https://www.extremetech.com/archive/49028-color-is-subjective

Every artifact has a design. That's part of the control- It's in the making of it already.

What "narrow"? It applies to any man-made artifact. A catapult doesn't fling itself.

Then how about you tell people like iNow to stop accusing me of repetition? After all, you've done some of that yourself. It's not a riddle. A machine doesn't do anything "on its own."

Read the argument. What's a program that's not a program?

...adding some random accusation doesn't make that accusation valid. "I'll just ignore your article, and when you raise points from the article I'll just say that you're using repetition"

...and there's no law of nature making everything out there conscious an impossibility, including toilet seats. So it's an utterly USELESS LAW. The law of non-contradiction forbids ANY machine to be conscious. There's no "instruction without instruction"

Uh, it means your criteria is moot. My criteria, if you or anyone else bother to read the darned argument, actually does determines something. What law of nature DOESN'T allow something to be conscious? Zilch. The criteria is moot. There is a law called "law of Pink Unicorn" that allows anything to be conscious, even a toilet seat. So does your "law of nature." It's not a meaningful measure. Do you even understand?

Good heavens. "what is allowed or forbidden" is a criteria. I just showed that your criteria of "law of nature" is moot because it allows even a toilet seat to be conscious, so what's the point? What isn't conscious, then?

Then there is no criteria for consciousness based on any law of nature. Your question is moot. Thank you and good night.

Uh, you didn't answer my question: Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"? I'm demonstrating to you why your question is moot.

....and a toilet seat isn't an "artificial device" how? Again! Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"?