AI Developing a Reality of Consciousness May Be Possible

[EmDriver]

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.

Edited February 18, 2023 by EmDriver

[EmDriver]

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.

[AIkonoklazt]

Sigh. Let's start with this:
 

Quote

Based on our current scientific understanding of our DNA, it does seem that we are programmed entities.

No it doesn't. That goes against scientific findings.

(copypasta from my article)

DNA is not programming code. Genetic makeup only influences and does not determine behavior. DNA doesn’t function like machine code, either. DNA sequencing carries instructions for a wide range of roles such as growth and reproduction, while the functional scope of machine code is comparatively limited. Observations suggest that every gene affects every complex trait to a degree not precisely known[17]. This shows their workings to be underdetermined, while programming code is functionally determinate in contrast (There’s no way for programmers to engineer behaviors, whether adaptive or “evolutionary,” without knowing what the program code is supposed to do. See section discussing “Volition Rooms”) and heavily compartmentalized in comparison (show me a large program in which every individual line of code influences ALL behavior). The DNA-programming parallel is a bad analogy that doesn’t stand up to scientific observation.

[EmDriver]

29 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Sigh. Let's start with this:
 

No it doesn't. That goes against scientific findings.

(copypasta from my article)

DNA is not programming code. Genetic makeup only influences and does not determine behavior. DNA doesn’t function like machine code, either. DNA sequencing carries instructions for a wide range of roles such as growth and reproduction, while the functional scope of machine code is comparatively limited. Observations suggest that every gene affects every complex trait to a degree not precisely known[17]. This shows their workings to be underdetermined, while programming code is functionally determinate in contrast (There’s no way for programmers to engineer behaviors, whether adaptive or “evolutionary,” without knowing what the program code is supposed to do. See section discussing “Volition Rooms”) and heavily compartmentalized in comparison (show me a large program in which every individual line of code influences ALL behavior). The DNA-programming parallel is a bad analogy that doesn’t stand up to scientific observation.

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?

[studiot]

Heaven help us if some fools combines this self awareness with that shape shifting robot that melts itself to get outof jail.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-64668021

Oh sorry they already did that in Holywood - Terminator II.

[EmDriver]

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.

Edited February 19, 2023 by EmDriver

[AIkonoklazt]

On 2/18/2023 at 3:37 PM, EmDriver said:

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've already told you in the reply that you've just replied to:

1. Fuctional scope is vastly different between the two
2. Compartmentalization in code but not DNA

(when I repeated myself in the other thread, some idiot kept insisting that I'm "using my own writing as evidence" SMH)

[EmDriver]

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.

Edited February 20, 2023 by EmDriver

[AIkonoklazt]

EmDriver, I suggest you don't just google up terms and expect to instantly get a counterargument out of it.

The "compartmentalization" you linked to isn't talking about various functions DNA perform. It's talking about differentiation of packaging into TWO states.

You need an actual modicum of what's being discussed before just using some term you've found. TRY AGAIN

edit: I just noticed that you fielded a strawman. I never said anything regarding where consciousness could only arise- I only deny consciousness to artifacts.

Edited February 20, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
noticed I got stuck with strawman

[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.

[EmDriver]

From the article I linked (https://narlikarlab.ucsf.edu/mechanisms-genome-compartmentalization) it mentions: "Such compartmentalization allows diverse transcriptional programs to arise from a single genetic blue print." It also mentions that: "...differential compartmentalization of the same genome into transcriptionally active (euchromatic) and repressed (heterochromatic) states." The euchromatic and heterochromatic states of the same genome are being compared to "libraries with common functionality". These libraries then are used to create "diverse transcriptional programs" from a "single genetic blue print", aka a genome.

If you don't like how this is a similarity to a programming language, I'm assuming the same with my previous question (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.). I have another example about compartmentalization in our programming language if you would like to view it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35077681/.

I actually agree with you about the difference of scope for DNA and the programming languages we have created, but for a different reason. Just reiterating information I previously mentioned, a language with more dimensions then another language would have different levels of scope. Simplifying dimensions to create a logical algorithm in the way that we created programming languages makes it easier to program, but there is fundamentally less that you can actually manipulate by using less dimensions.

[EmDriver]

Wow I didn't realize how many views this thread has gotten. I then will mention now that the last article I linked was just how I wanted to give an example of what the poster I was replying to was insinuating that I was doing in regards to looking up terms to get a 'counter-argument' too. It's actually a really interesting article about "nuclear phase separation" if anyone is interested in that kind of stuff.

[AIkonoklazt]

The functions of a computer program is compartmentalized into subroutines. This is compartmentalization of machine program code into different functions, in contrast to compartmentalization of DNA into different states with "libraries of same functionality".

The difference is abundantly clear. I think you were simply confused by the inclusion of the term "compartmentalization" in both.

Combined with how omnigenetics work, you'd see that DNA works nothing like machine programs. Again, show me a large program where every line of code influences all behavior of the program. There isn't one, that's not how subroutines work, they are divided functionally, not functionally "fused" with "libraries of same functionality" the way DNA is.

Is the difference clear now?

As for others, I have very little to no faith in them. If they're actually interested in the "how" of anything, they would have responded to the points I've made in my article on the matter instead of just "responding" to the title and nothing else.

[EmDriver]

I think what is happening here is a misinterpretation of why I am disagreeing with you. I agree with you that there is difference in scope for the programming languages we have created and the complex 3 dimensional language contained within our very own bodies. I'm comparing what is happening in the way information is stored, read, and transmitted in our bodies to how we store, read, and transmit information in our programming languages but in a 3 dimensional way. That is why it similar to the programming languages we created. It's going to have differences because it's a 3 dimensional language. If you are correct and this is compartmentalization in the form of libraries of same functionality, that would mean your assertion that DNA does not contain compartmentalization would be false. Please explain or define why these are libraries of same functionality and not common functionality so the possibility of a miscommunication does not occur.

 

Thoughts in general:

I was doing research has I do everyday and found an interesting connection to Penrose and Hammeroff's theory on consciousness. There is something else that effects microtubules which we have solid evidence of, and has an effect on our states of consciousness. 5-MeO-DMT: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-12779-5. We actually produce N,N-Dimethyltryptamine from our pineal glands.

I also realized something that I couldn't find anyone doing a test on. Has anyone actually tried creating a mold of a quantum dot that was identical to a microtubule to use as qubits in a quantum computer? If this type of quantum computer (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.020501) was created it could possibly get some interesting results.

Edited February 22, 2023 by EmDriver

[AIkonoklazt]

You're asking me to simply repeat myself.

It's the same functionality. There isn't any compartmentalization worthy of note in what you mentioned because it's one of form (e.g. physical shape) and not function (how it works).

The compartmentalization I mentioned was regarding one that compartmentalizes into different functions, not just form.

I don't see how this is so difficult to understand.

Penrose himself have said that consciousness isn't computational, so I don't see the point of mentioning him at all.

Edited March 24, 2023 by AIkonoklazt