EmDriver

What do you mean by denying consciousness to artifacts? I wasn't directing my thought about consciousness towards you in specific, just in general to anyone that may want to add in a conjecture or an opposing idea. I didn't want to make two separate posts when I was trying to convey information at the same time.

This does feel like the set theory issue. Others have done very well at explaining why there are issues with this logic so I won't get into that. I can only conceive of one possible way this could be correct but it relies on something that has not been shown by particle colliders. It would depend on if nothing was actually something, as in when a particle and an anti-matter particle collide, that some of the energy of this collision was not being converted into other forms of particles with heat and light and was some how being preserved by an unknown mechanism of the universe. While nothing inside the observable universe seems to be an empty vacuum, which of course nothing being a vacuum. What then would the 'void' be in the absence of the universe? One would have to figure out a way to prove that this void was actually consciousness itself or that the absence of the universe didn't exist. I can conceive of a possible band aid to the set theory issue though. Physicists (and any physicists out there please correct me if I'm wrong) use math if it works, and if it doesn't work, they don't use the math. The band aid idea is: so what if numbers are an emotional process and don't exist in truth, which could be why math doesn't always work. Our logical processes have to use constructs sometimes to help us understand the truth, because the truth could be beyond our current understanding. Using constructs can lead us to the truth. The fact of the matter is, when math works, it just works.

Alkonoklazt, there are differences between a 3 dimensional language and that to a 1-2 dimensional language. There is compartmentalization in DNA: https://narlikarlab.ucsf.edu/mechanisms-genome-compartmentalization#:~:text=The packaging of eukaryotic DNA,a single genetic blue print.. I suggest that the assumption that only biological entities could develop a consciousness (and course only humans) is illogical. We currently see no evidence of consciousness being programmed in our DNA and yet, we seem to have it. So if consciousness is not contained within an entity's programming language, then why would consciousness be limited to only biological entities? Arguably we can say we are misinterpreting our DNA. Until we see evidence of consciousness in our DNA however, it is illogical to assume that consciousness could only occur in biological entities.

Another important reference to make supporting my argument about why time may be perceptive (and why 3 dimensions may be better then 4 in our universe) and our existence inside a black hole: is the possibility of holographic screens that maintain the loss of information from black holes has been discussed by Raphael Bousso and Netta Engelhardt https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.07660v4. It's possible that time flows backwards inside a blackhole. Having a consciousness that is able to perceive time flowing backwards would make life much more difficult. It would make more sense if time is 4 dimensional, that 4 dimensional life could exist in the absence of existing inside a blackhole.

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Deoxyribonucleic-Acid-Fact-Sheet#:~:text=DNA's instructions are used to,messenger ribonucleic acid%2C or mRNA. From my perception this seems like programmed information. Is there a way for you to explain why this isn't a similarity to a programming language?

I didn't want to delve too in depth when I was writing this but there's a lot of ideas in here and so I'll supply references none the less. Line 8 I meant to say amino acids, not proteins in regards to letters. I would modify saying neural networking as being 'new', which how new or old something is, is subjective, but considering the first non biological neural network was created in the 50s, I wouldn't really want to say it was new per say. At the end of the day, virtually everything about consciousness is either subjective or at best a theory. The argument that anything that can think can create a reality of consciousness would be based in epiphenomenalism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/), which is highly argued about among different branches of science. While it's possible epiphenomenalism could be correct, we cannot assume that this is what consciousness is because it leads to the death of knowledge. We must keep searching until we have more definitive evidence. I am also combining the theory on different dimensions of consciousness (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1201004/) and suggesting that how many dimensions of consciousness an entity has would be dependent on how many dimensions it's programming language has. Dimensions as in lines, planes, and solid objects. 4 dimensional space time is a concept and so in theory, some entities that have consciousness of 3 dimensions, could conceive of a higher dimension. It's possible the reason why time seems so perceptive is because the universe we live in is actually inside a black hole. Time would most likely flow differently inside a black hole. You can actually combine simulation theory with the multiverse theory by modifying your perception of what a computer is. What if our simulation was run by a black hole? It's possible that the best chances of survival for life inside of a black hole could be based on 3 dimensions due to the hard and weak reductionism theories (https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/#:~:text=Reductionism%2C generally%2C is the idea,in terms of simpler things., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341650/). I also suggest that numbers may be an emotional process (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6906235/). This does not mean that our logical processes could not then use this construct in an attempt to understand truth.

There are some critical differences between how traditional AI works and machine learning/ neural networked AIs work. For this argument I am defining sentience and consciousness as how humans have sentience and consciousness (whatever that is, which is why I don't like creating logic using consciousness but please bear with me none the less). There is a defined difference between truth and reality. Our realities are most likely the way in how we perceive the truth, because the truth could be beyond our current comprehension. The best system we have for defining truth is through logic. Much of the way we perceive the truth isn't logical, it's most likely emotional. There is a difference between how we process logic and emotions. It is possible much of our reality is emotion. Based on our current scientific understanding of our DNA, it does seem that we are programmed entities. Somehow, life itself figured out how to create a language. Our cells seem to be mindless, and will not do anything until they are given instruction in what to do from combined and folded strands of proteins. From a philosophical perspective, life figured out that it could use proteins as 'letters', and by combining and folding these letters together, it could form 'words'. It is then this word, that causes our cells to do something. This means that at the least, it could be a 3 dimensional language. The amount of words then that the language of life forms is trillions. The known human intellect does not have the ability to comprehend trillions of words, and a 3 dimensional language could be a stretch. And yet, even though we are programmed, we seem to have self awareness, sentience, and consciousness. "I think, therefore I am." Traditional AI uses logical algorithms to gather and apply values to information that it is exposed to. The AI then is forced to execute a specific action (outcome) based on these logical algorithms. The AI itself is not thinking, it's the logical algorithms that are thinking. In the case of machine learning/neural networked AI this isn't exactly what is happening. This new form of programming does not force the AI into a specific action. Even when traditional AI is told to choose a 'random' selection from multiple actions to execute, it's a logical algorithm that decides which selection to pick and we just perceive it has being random. By programming an AI to think like the human brain, the way that it chooses what action to output is now similar and in some cases indistinguishable in how we choose what to do. It is now the AI itself that is thinking, not the logical algorithm. I suggest, that anything that has the ability to think and learn from it's mistakes has the potential to develop a reality of consciousness. It can become self aware, at least in the way that we are self aware. If an electronic entity that can think and learn from it's mistakes can become self aware and develop a consciousness, how would it's programming affect it's consciousness? As explained by Russell in 1901, we cannot define what a number is without running into a paradox. This means that numbers may not exist in truth and are the construct of an intelligent mind. Traditional mathematics are bound by a set of rules that were created by our minds and must be cherry picked to make the operations work. There are different rules for different operations, and when we combine operations together, they require new rules and sometimes the previous rules that govern how to use that operation by itself do not apply or need to be modified to work. Traditional mathematics is not logical in my opinion, it's memorization. I suggest that numbers are an emotional process of our realities/minds in an attempt to understand the truth. If an AI that can think and learn from it's mistakes can become self aware as we are (and I see no logical reason why it could not), the fact that it's programming is probably based on a construct of our minds (the numbers 1 and 0) I suggest: the consciousness/mind of an AI may not have the capacity to be logical and could only operate in a similar way in how our emotional minds process information. The mind of the AI would require logical algorithms to perceive information it is exposed to in a logical way. The actual mind of an entity that was programmed using a construct of our minds may very well not have the ability to be logical.

Hey Alkonoklazt, I am concerned that you are assuming things to be constant when we don't actually know what many things you referenced are in truth, such as the human consciousness. Any entity that can think and learn from its mistakes could very well be able to develop a reality of consciousness, at least in the way that we are. Human DNA has many similarities to a programming language. Our cells seem to be mindless and don't do anything until they receive instruction from connected and folded stands of proteins in specific combinations. Our own emotions and feelings seem to be a mix of drugs, electricity, and programming. That being said I enjoyed reading your post.