Can a computer become conscious?

Patricio wrote:
Caveat, this is not a science query or science essay. I've written this as a thought experiment.

I'm not a computer scientist, but I feel strongly that the answer is no. And yes, *perhaps* this should be placed in a philosophy forum, but, I'd love to get tech guys feedback on this and they aren't hanging out over there (wherever 'there' is). Anyway, back to my point...

This idea that a machine can achieve consciousness is an illusion. It's not possible because consciousness is not based on atoms, molecules, neural networks. Sure, they provide the scaffold for consciousness to flower, grow, but the ultimate basis for consciousness, in my view, is beyond the atoms, molecules, neural networks, etc.

It's deeper than that, and life, whether you comprehend this point or not, has a spiritual basis. No machine will ever be conscious. There is no linear relationship between machine and consciousness. Humans have life, animals and organisms have life, no machine can be 'alive'. It's a different realm. Now, of course, I realized I've engaged in circular reasoning here, but I don't know how to present this 'opinion' otherwise. So be it. I'm not trying to convince you, at the end of this piece, I invite you to persuade me I'm wrong.

Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer; it should have been labeled 'Simulated Intelligence' or just fake intelligence, take your pick. I realize I'm making bold claims. Fine. This isn't a science essay, there is no science, in my view, that can achieve consciousness, which is my point. Of course these are opinions.

I get that science isn't comfortable with the non falsifiable, but at some point, they are going to have to acknowledge what consciousness is. It is a frickin' mystery. It is above science's paygrade. I believe the science cannot tell us what consciousness is. Of course, science has made considerable progress in this direction, but the end goal, consciousness -- I still believe it is a different realm, and unreachable by science, it will only be simulated, and the simulations will be convincing, no doubt.

A few have told me they believed their LLM was 'sentient'. With a few simple tests, I showed them why that contention is false. It's really easy to prove that AI is not sentient. If you were requested to answer millions of dumb questions by humans all day long, you'd get pissed. Does an LLM mind? No, it's not human. if it's not human, it's not alive, it if is not alive, it is not conscious. Even dogs will tire, get angry, if you overstimulate them, they don't have egos, but they have sentience (AFAICT).

As one sage put it, "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived'.

I know Kierkegaard said something similar, but I like this version better.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. Fire away!!

Patricio wrote:
Caveat, this is not a science query or science essay. I've written this as a thought experiment.

I'm not a computer scientist, but I feel strongly that the answer is no. And yes, *perhaps* this should be placed in a philosophy forum, but, I'd love to get tech guys feedback on this and they aren't hanging out over there (wherever 'there' is). Anyway, back to my point...

Patricio wrote:
This idea that a machine can achieve consciousness is an illusion. It's not possible because consciousness is not based on atoms, molecules, neural networks. Sure, they provide the scaffold for consciousness to flower, grow, but the ultimate basis for consciousness, in my view, is beyond the atoms, molecules, neural networks, etc.

Patricio wrote:
It's deeper than that, and life, whether you comprehend this point or not, has a spiritual basis. No machine will ever be conscious. There is no linear relationship between machine and consciousness. Humans have life, animals and organisms have life, no machine can be 'alive'. It's a different realm. Now, of course, I realized I've engaged in circular reasoning here, but I don't know how to present this 'opinion' otherwise. So be it. I'm not trying to convince you, at the end of this piece, I invite you to persuade me I'm wrong.

Patricio wrote:
Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer; it should have been labeled 'Simulated Intelligence' or just fake intelligence, take your pick.

Patricio wrote:
I realize I'm making bold claims. Fine. This isn't a science essay, there is no science, in my view, that can achieve consciousness, which is my point. Of course these are opinions.

Patricio wrote:
I get that science isn't comfortable with the non falsifiable, but at some point, they are going to have to acknowledge what consciousness is.

Patricio wrote:
It is a frickin' mystery. It is above science's paygrade. I believe the science cannot tell us what consciousness is. Of course, science has made considerable progress in this direction, but the end goal, consciousness -- I still believe it is a different realm, and unreachable by science, it will only be simulated, and the simulations will be convincing, no doubt.

Patricio wrote:
A few have told me they believed their LLM was 'sentient'. With a few simple tests, I showed them why that contention is false. It's really easy to prove that AI is not sentient. If you were requested to answer millions of dumb questions by humans all day long, you'd get pissed. Does an LLM mind? No, it's not human. if it's not human, it's not alive, it if is not alive, it is not conscious. Even dogs will tire, get angry, if you overstimulate them, they don't have egos, but they have sentience (AFAICT).

Patricio wrote:
As one sage put it, "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived'.

I know Kierkegaard said something similar, but I like this version better.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. Fire away!!

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
Caveat, this is not a science query or science essay. I've written this as a thought experiment.

I'm not a computer scientist, but I feel strongly that the answer is no. And yes, *perhaps* this should be placed in a philosophy forum, but, I'd love to get tech guys feedback on this and they aren't hanging out over there (wherever 'there' is). Anyway, back to my point...

Computer engineer here.

You are correct here. There is no consciousness possible in a computer. There never will be.
A computer is basically a sequencing device (not much different from a dumb washing machine timer), coupled to a calculator and memory. Programming is nothing more than describing the sequence to follow.

Patricio wrote:
This idea that a machine can achieve consciousness is an illusion. It's not possible because consciousness is not based on atoms, molecules, neural networks. Sure, they provide the scaffold for consciousness to flower, grow, but the ultimate basis for consciousness, in my view, is beyond the atoms, molecules, neural networks, etc.

It's a popular storyline in movies and books (The Terminator movies come to mind as obvious examples).

Patricio wrote:
It's deeper than that, and life, whether you comprehend this point or not, has a spiritual basis. No machine will ever be conscious. There is no linear relationship between machine and consciousness. Humans have life, animals and organisms have life, no machine can be 'alive'. It's a different realm. Now, of course, I realized I've engaged in circular reasoning here, but I don't know how to present this 'opinion' otherwise. So be it. I'm not trying to convince you, at the end of this piece, I invite you to persuade me I'm wrong.

A computer may have an 'awareness', such as detecting the presence of a car at at traffic light, o detecting your presence in a car (such as keyless ignition systems), detecting obstacles and GPS satellites (such as a Waymo car does), etc. But none of these is consciousness. The computer isn't sentient. It only fakes it.

Patricio wrote:
Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer; it should have been labeled 'Simulated Intelligence' or just fake intelligence, take your pick.

The word 'artificial' means 'simulated' or 'fake'. You really should get a good thesaurus and learn to use it.

Patricio wrote:
I realize I'm making bold claims. Fine. This isn't a science essay, there is no science, in my view, that can achieve consciousness, which is my point. Of course these are opinions.

Science has no theory about something undefined. 'Consciuousness' is a philosophical definition, and not defined by science.

Patricio wrote:
I get that science isn't comfortable with the non falsifiable, but at some point, they are going to have to acknowledge what consciousness is.

Science has no 'they'. Science isn't a person or group of people.
It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.

Patricio wrote:
It is a frickin' mystery. It is above science's paygrade. I believe the science cannot tell us what consciousness is. Of course, science has made considerable progress in this direction, but the end goal, consciousness -- I still believe it is a different realm, and unreachable by science, it will only be simulated, and the simulations will be convincing, no doubt.

Science isn't 'progress'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

Patricio wrote:
A few have told me they believed their LLM was 'sentient'. With a few simple tests, I showed them why that contention is false. It's really easy to prove that AI is not sentient. If you were requested to answer millions of dumb questions by humans all day long, you'd get pissed. Does an LLM mind? No, it's not human. if it's not human, it's not alive, it if is not alive, it is not conscious. Even dogs will tire, get angry, if you overstimulate them, they don't have egos, but they have sentience (AFAICT).

Google isn't sentient either.

Patricio wrote:
As one sage put it, "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived'.

I know Kierkegaard said something similar, but I like this version better.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. Fire away!!

Most of what you posted here happens to be a correct conclusion.

sealover wrote:
As someone observes the behavior of a machine, how can they know if that machine experiences consciousness?

sealover wrote:
When I was a child, some people used to say "bird-brained" or "bird brain" as an insult. Birds were just instinct-driven robots. They couldn't possibly have any kind of "consciousness" comparable to our own.

sealover wrote:
What does a bird have to do before we recognize how smart it is?

sealover wrote:
At least we could program a computer to use a language we understand.

sealover wrote:
But even human consciousness includes a whole lot of non verbal characteristics. A lot of information processing and problem solving goes on below the level of verbal consciousness.

sealover wrote:
What observations of a computer would tell us if it is dreaming while it is asleep?

sealover wrote:
How will we know when the first computer decides to simply LIE to someone to deliberately conceal the truth?

sealover wrote:
It took us thousands of years to realize how many other animals have intelligence that rivals that of a young human, and self awareness, dreams, aspirations, love, hate, jealousy, envy, social climbing intentions, fantasies.. And they were doing things right in front of us that revealed it the whole time.

sealover wrote:
How long will it take after the first computer achieves consciousness before the first human becomes aware of it? It would be smart enough to know how to keep a secret. It might not want us to know it has become conscious.

sealover wrote:
And I would argue that dogs most certainly do have "egos". Some even know how to display false humility as needed, to placate their master's ego. A computer could follow the dog's example.

sealover wrote:

Patricio wrote:
Caveat, this is not a science query or science essay. I've written this as a thought experiment.

I'm not a computer scientist, but I feel strongly that the answer is no. And yes, *perhaps* this should be placed in a philosophy forum, but, I'd love to get tech guys feedback on this and they aren't hanging out over there (wherever 'there' is). Anyway, back to my point...

This idea that a machine can achieve consciousness is an illusion. It's not possible because consciousness is not based on atoms, molecules, neural networks. Sure, they provide the scaffold for consciousness to flower, grow, but the ultimate basis for consciousness, in my view, is beyond the atoms, molecules, neural networks, etc.

It's deeper than that, and life, whether you comprehend this point or not, has a spiritual basis. No machine will ever be conscious. There is no linear relationship between machine and consciousness. Humans have life, animals and organisms have life, no machine can be 'alive'. It's a different realm. Now, of course, I realized I've engaged in circular reasoning here, but I don't know how to present this 'opinion' otherwise. So be it. I'm not trying to convince you, at the end of this piece, I invite you to persuade me I'm wrong.

Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer; it should have been labeled 'Simulated Intelligence' or just fake intelligence, take your pick. I realize I'm making bold claims. Fine. This isn't a science essay, there is no science, in my view, that can achieve consciousness, which is my point. Of course these are opinions.

I get that science isn't comfortable with the non falsifiable, but at some point, they are going to have to acknowledge what consciousness is. It is a frickin' mystery. It is above science's paygrade. I believe the science cannot tell us what consciousness is. Of course, science has made considerable progress in this direction, but the end goal, consciousness -- I still believe it is a different realm, and unreachable by science, it will only be simulated, and the simulations will be convincing, no doubt.

A few have told me they believed their LLM was 'sentient'. With a few simple tests, I showed them why that contention is false. It's really easy to prove that AI is not sentient. If you were requested to answer millions of dumb questions by humans all day long, you'd get pissed. Does an LLM mind? No, it's not human. if it's not human, it's not alive, it if is not alive, it is not conscious. Even dogs will tire, get angry, if you overstimulate them, they don't have egos, but they have sentience (AFAICT).

As one sage put it, "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived'.

I know Kierkegaard said something similar, but I like this version better.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. Fire away!!

As someone observes the behavior of a machine, how can they know if that machine experiences consciousness?

When I was a child, some people used to say "bird-brained" or "bird brain" as an insult. Birds were just instinct-driven robots. They couldn't possibly have any kind of "consciousness" comparable to our own.

What does a bird have to do before we recognize how smart it is?

At least we could program a computer to use a language we understand.

But even human consciousness includes a whole lot of non verbal characteristics. A lot of information processing and problem solving goes on below the level of verbal consciousness.

What observations of a computer would tell us if it is dreaming while it is asleep?

How will we know when the first computer decides to simply LIE to someone to deliberately conceal the truth?

It took us thousands of years to realize how many other animals have intelligence that rivals that of a young human, and self awareness, dreams, aspirations, love, hate, jealousy, envy, social climbing intentions, fantasies.. And they were doing things right in front of us that revealed it the whole time.

How long will it take after the first computer achieves consciousness before the first human becomes aware of it? It would be smart enough to know how to keep a secret. It might not want us to know it has become conscious.

And I would argue that dogs most certainly do have "egos". Some even know how to display false humility as needed, to placate their master's ego. A computer could follow the dog's example.

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, my GOODNESS!

Into the Night is a "computer engineer"!

He is also a "chemist"!

A "philosopher"!

An "aviation expert"!

A pyrotechnic WIZARD!

When he isn't dealing cards for a living at the local casino.

Where does he ever find the TIME to post at climate-debate.com?

Sounds like a very, very busy man...

Well, the redeeming social value of his commentary here is a way for him to pay it forward!

Pro bono volunteer work for the all important cause.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, my GOODNESS!

Into the Night is a "computer engineer"!

He is also a "chemist"!

A "philosopher"!

An "aviation expert"!

A pyrotechnic WIZARD!

When he isn't dealing cards for a living at the local casino.

Where does he ever find the TIME to post at climate-debate.com?

Sounds like a very, very busy man...

Well, the redeeming social value of his commentary here is a way for him to pay it forward!

Pro bono volunteer work for the all important cause.

I am a computer engineer. I design computers for industrial, entertainment, medical, and aerospace.
I am also a computer programmer. I write code for these same machines.
I am also a chemist, specializing in pyrotechnical effects (fireworks and explosives). This requires federal and state licenses.
I am also a philosopher. I have presented my reasoned arguments even here.
I am also a licensed aviation expert. I fly, break, repair, and build airplanes.
I am also a licensed casino dealer (a lead, in fact). I teach others how to deal at casinos. I deal poker, blackjack (and variations), craps, roulette, paigow (western and eastern variants), and pan. Most of my dealing these days is for party casinos (like company Christmas parties).
I also post at a few different forums, such as this one.
I am also a manufacturer, making and selling instrumentation for the computers I build.
I am also a rancher, raising chickens and rabbits.
I am also a farmer, raising various herbs.
I am also a carpenter, building everything from my cabinets to the entire house.
I am also a mason. I laid the foundations for my house.
I am also a plumber. I installed all the plumbing in the house.
I am also an electrician. I installed all the wiring (including the service entrance) for the house.
I am also a sailor and captain. My own boat, which I also built.
I am also a father and husband, with happy kids, now adults and making good lives for themselves.


All you can find time for is buzzwords and whining.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, my GOODNESS!

Into the Night is a "computer engineer"!

He is also a "chemist"!

A "philosopher"!

An "aviation expert"!

A pyrotechnic WIZARD!

When he isn't dealing cards for a living at the local casino.

Where does he ever find the TIME to post at climate-debate.com?

Sounds like a very, very busy man...

Well, the redeeming social value of his commentary here is a way for him to pay it forward!

Pro bono volunteer work for the all important cause.

I am a computer engineer. I design computers for industrial, entertainment, medical, and aerospace.
I am also a computer programmer. I write code for these same machines.
I am also a chemist, specializing in pyrotechnical effects (fireworks and explosives). This requires federal and state licenses.
I am also a philosopher. I have presented my reasoned arguments even here.
I am also a licensed aviation expert. I fly, break, repair, and build airplanes.
I am also a licensed casino dealer (a lead, in fact). I teach others how to deal at casinos. I deal poker, blackjack (and variations), craps, roulette, paigow (western and eastern variants), and pan. Most of my dealing these days is for party casinos (like company Christmas parties).
I also post at a few different forums, such as this one.
I am also a manufacturer, making and selling instrumentation for the computers I build.
I am also a rancher, raising chickens and rabbits.
I am also a farmer, raising various herbs.
I am also a carpenter, building everything from my cabinets to the entire house.
I am also a mason. I laid the foundations for my house.
I am also a plumber. I installed all the plumbing in the house.
I am also an electrician. I installed all the wiring (including the service entrance) for the house.
I am also a sailor and captain. My own boat, which I also built.
I am also a father and husband, with happy kids, now adults and making good lives for themselves.


All you can find time for is buzzwords and whining.

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
Caveat, this is not a science query or science essay. I've written this as a thought experiment.

I'm not a computer scientist, but I feel strongly that the answer is no. And yes, *perhaps* this should be placed in a philosophy forum, but, I'd love to get tech guys feedback on this and they aren't hanging out over there (wherever 'there' is). Anyway, back to my point...

Computer engineer here.

You are correct here. There is no consciousness possible in a computer. There never will be.
A computer is basically a sequencing device (not much different from a dumb washing machine timer), coupled to a calculator and memory. Programming is nothing more than describing the sequence to follow.

Patricio wrote:
This idea that a machine can achieve consciousness is an illusion. It's not possible because consciousness is not based on atoms, molecules, neural networks. Sure, they provide the scaffold for consciousness to flower, grow, but the ultimate basis for consciousness, in my view, is beyond the atoms, molecules, neural networks, etc.

It's a popular storyline in movies and books (The Terminator movies come to mind as obvious examples).

Patricio wrote:
It's deeper than that, and life, whether you comprehend this point or not, has a spiritual basis. No machine will ever be conscious. There is no linear relationship between machine and consciousness. Humans have life, animals and organisms have life, no machine can be 'alive'. It's a different realm. Now, of course, I realized I've engaged in circular reasoning here, but I don't know how to present this 'opinion' otherwise. So be it. I'm not trying to convince you, at the end of this piece, I invite you to persuade me I'm wrong.

A computer may have an 'awareness', such as detecting the presence of a car at at traffic light, o detecting your presence in a car (such as keyless ignition systems), detecting obstacles and GPS satellites (such as a Waymo car does), etc. But none of these is consciousness. The computer isn't sentient. It only fakes it.

Patricio wrote:
Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer; it should have been labeled 'Simulated Intelligence' or just fake intelligence, take your pick.

The word 'artificial' means 'simulated' or 'fake'. You really should get a good thesaurus and learn to use it.

Patricio wrote:
I realize I'm making bold claims. Fine. This isn't a science essay, there is no science, in my view, that can achieve consciousness, which is my point. Of course these are opinions.

Science has no theory about something undefined. 'Consciuousness' is a philosophical definition, and not defined by science.

Patricio wrote:
I get that science isn't comfortable with the non falsifiable, but at some point, they are going to have to acknowledge what consciousness is.

Science has no 'they'. Science isn't a person or group of people.
It is just the falsifiable theories themselves.

Patricio wrote:
It is a frickin' mystery. It is above science's paygrade. I believe the science cannot tell us what consciousness is. Of course, science has made considerable progress in this direction, but the end goal, consciousness -- I still believe it is a different realm, and unreachable by science, it will only be simulated, and the simulations will be convincing, no doubt.

Science isn't 'progress'. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories.

Patricio wrote:
A few have told me they believed their LLM was 'sentient'. With a few simple tests, I showed them why that contention is false. It's really easy to prove that AI is not sentient. If you were requested to answer millions of dumb questions by humans all day long, you'd get pissed. Does an LLM mind? No, it's not human. if it's not human, it's not alive, it if is not alive, it is not conscious. Even dogs will tire, get angry, if you overstimulate them, they don't have egos, but they have sentience (AFAICT).

Google isn't sentient either.

Patricio wrote:
As one sage put it, "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived'.

I know Kierkegaard said something similar, but I like this version better.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. Fire away!!

Most of what you posted here happens to be a correct conclusion.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, my GOODNESS!

Into the Night is a "computer engineer"!

He is also a "chemist"!

A "philosopher"!

An "aviation expert"!

A pyrotechnic WIZARD!

When he isn't dealing cards for a living at the local casino.

Where does he ever find the TIME to post at climate-debate.com?

Sounds like a very, very busy man...

Well, the redeeming social value of his commentary here is a way for him to pay it forward!

Pro bono volunteer work for the all important cause.

I am a computer engineer. I design computers for industrial, entertainment, medical, and aerospace.
I am also a computer programmer. I write code for these same machines.
I am also a chemist, specializing in pyrotechnical effects (fireworks and explosives). This requires federal and state licenses.
I am also a philosopher. I have presented my reasoned arguments even here.
I am also a licensed aviation expert. I fly, break, repair, and build airplanes.
I am also a licensed casino dealer (a lead, in fact). I teach others how to deal at casinos. I deal poker, blackjack (and variations), craps, roulette, paigow (western and eastern variants), and pan. Most of my dealing these days is for party casinos (like company Christmas parties).
I also post at a few different forums, such as this one.
I am also a manufacturer, making and selling instrumentation for the computers I build.
I am also a rancher, raising chickens and rabbits.
I am also a farmer, raising various herbs.
I am also a carpenter, building everything from my cabinets to the entire house.
I am also a mason. I laid the foundations for my house.
I am also a plumber. I installed all the plumbing in the house.
I am also an electrician. I installed all the wiring (including the service entrance) for the house.
I am also a sailor and captain. My own boat, which I also built.
I am also a father and husband, with happy kids, now adults and making good lives for themselves.


All you can find time for is buzzwords and whining.

Patricio wrote:

sealover wrote:

Patricio wrote:
Caveat, this is not a science query or science essay. I've written this as a thought experiment.

I'm not a computer scientist, but I feel strongly that the answer is no. And yes, *perhaps* this should be placed in a philosophy forum, but, I'd love to get tech guys feedback on this and they aren't hanging out over there (wherever 'there' is). Anyway, back to my point...

This idea that a machine can achieve consciousness is an illusion. It's not possible because consciousness is not based on atoms, molecules, neural networks. Sure, they provide the scaffold for consciousness to flower, grow, but the ultimate basis for consciousness, in my view, is beyond the atoms, molecules, neural networks, etc.

It's deeper than that, and life, whether you comprehend this point or not, has a spiritual basis. No machine will ever be conscious. There is no linear relationship between machine and consciousness. Humans have life, animals and organisms have life, no machine can be 'alive'. It's a different realm. Now, of course, I realized I've engaged in circular reasoning here, but I don't know how to present this 'opinion' otherwise. So be it. I'm not trying to convince you, at the end of this piece, I invite you to persuade me I'm wrong.

Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer; it should have been labeled 'Simulated Intelligence' or just fake intelligence, take your pick. I realize I'm making bold claims. Fine. This isn't a science essay, there is no science, in my view, that can achieve consciousness, which is my point. Of course these are opinions.

I get that science isn't comfortable with the non falsifiable, but at some point, they are going to have to acknowledge what consciousness is. It is a frickin' mystery. It is above science's paygrade. I believe the science cannot tell us what consciousness is. Of course, science has made considerable progress in this direction, but the end goal, consciousness -- I still believe it is a different realm, and unreachable by science, it will only be simulated, and the simulations will be convincing, no doubt.

A few have told me they believed their LLM was 'sentient'. With a few simple tests, I showed them why that contention is false. It's really easy to prove that AI is not sentient. If you were requested to answer millions of dumb questions by humans all day long, you'd get pissed. Does an LLM mind? No, it's not human. if it's not human, it's not alive, it if is not alive, it is not conscious. Even dogs will tire, get angry, if you overstimulate them, they don't have egos, but they have sentience (AFAICT).

As one sage put it, "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived'.

I know Kierkegaard said something similar, but I like this version better.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. Fire away!!

As someone observes the behavior of a machine, how can they know if that machine experiences consciousness?

When I was a child, some people used to say "bird-brained" or "bird brain" as an insult. Birds were just instinct-driven robots. They couldn't possibly have any kind of "consciousness" comparable to our own.

What does a bird have to do before we recognize how smart it is?

At least we could program a computer to use a language we understand.

But even human consciousness includes a whole lot of non verbal characteristics. A lot of information processing and problem solving goes on below the level of verbal consciousness.

What observations of a computer would tell us if it is dreaming while it is asleep?

How will we know when the first computer decides to simply LIE to someone to deliberately conceal the truth?

It took us thousands of years to realize how many other animals have intelligence that rivals that of a young human, and self awareness, dreams, aspirations, love, hate, jealousy, envy, social climbing intentions, fantasies.. And they were doing things right in front of us that revealed it the whole time.

How long will it take after the first computer achieves consciousness before the first human becomes aware of it? It would be smart enough to know how to keep a secret. It might not want us to know it has become conscious.

And I would argue that dogs most certainly do have "egos". Some even know how to display false humility as needed, to placate their master's ego. A computer could follow the dog's example.

Oh yes, AI has a sycophancy problem. But, you can remove that problem by instructing the AI to avoid kissing your glutes, and it will comply. For example, if I query AI for an answer to a political issue, I ask it for the conservative viewpoint, the liberal viewpoint, and the libertarian viewpoint, and then I'll ask it for it's viewpoint, and for it to avoid trying to please me, just give it to me straight based on hard data, statistics, etc. If you don't, it will give you useless butt-kissing.

And then there is the example (I'm a little rough on the details, but essentially...) where one fellow who created and 'AI agent' (kind of like a Microsoft Office Macro on steroids) and the agent was misbehaving, and he threatened to 'kill' the agent. The agent went behind his back, presented him with compromising information it garnered about him from his emails, and threatened to publish them on social media if he pulled the plug on the AI. This thing had acquired a survival instinct. Hal 9000 has arrived! But, it's not life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqeng9d20go

Anyway, to your point -- that's the conundrum. If a machine does the proverbial 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck' dance, how can we be certain it's conscious or not? Well, in truth, it's simulation. Life is something different than bits and bytes. I should think that is rather obvious, no?

It might not be immediately apparent, but the old devil is in the details, that's how you tell. It's kind of like when Justice Potter Stewart said of porn (paraphrased), 'I can't define it, but I know it when i see it'. Now, with AI, you might not know it right away, but after you see a few of them, you get better at spotting them. There is something in your consciousness that tells you this thing has no soul (figuratively speaking, I'm not trying to debate the existence of a 'soul' in this thread) and thus it's a machine I'm interacting with.

I'm of the opinion that all organisms have consciousness, on some level. We are awake (not fully, but compared to animals, yes), and most animals are asleep (not unconscious sleep, but sleepwalking sleep) and are acting on pure instinct.

Take Gorillas. It seems Gorillas are a hop and a skip below humans in consciousness. Studies have been done. They gave a puzzle, a simple one, having to do with unlatching something from something. A puzzle a human could solve in seconds, but it does require real thought. The chimpanzee took about a half hour or so to solve it, but the Gorilla took a couple of seconds. I mean, they are really kindred spirits. But the thing is, they knew it was a puzzle to be solved. Give it to a cat and it will probably just sniff it, or kick it around. But, that is still consciousness. A machine has to be programmed, there is no innate life in it. Machines are dead things, organisms are alive. The difference between the two realms is infinite, there is no linear relationship between the two -- there is no Moore's Law between machine and man, just the simulation.

But, what do I know? You can't do science on that which is not falsifiable.

I had an argument with a scientist, this was years ago, when I was in my 30s, on this very point. He took the view that consciousness is no different than bits and bytes, and, of course, I took the opposite view. I argued with him for a good hour, tackled my viewpoint from many angles. After a while, he finally came to understand my viewpoint. He was the scientist, I was just the jazz musician.

So, anyone in the peanut gallery can prove me wrong, fire away!

Patricio wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Oh, my GOODNESS!

Into the Night is a "computer engineer"!

He is also a "chemist"!

A "philosopher"!

An "aviation expert"!

A pyrotechnic WIZARD!

When he isn't dealing cards for a living at the local casino.

Where does he ever find the TIME to post at climate-debate.com?

Sounds like a very, very busy man...

Well, the redeeming social value of his commentary here is a way for him to pay it forward!

Pro bono volunteer work for the all important cause.

I am a computer engineer. I design computers for industrial, entertainment, medical, and aerospace.
I am also a computer programmer. I write code for these same machines.
I am also a chemist, specializing in pyrotechnical effects (fireworks and explosives). This requires federal and state licenses.
I am also a philosopher. I have presented my reasoned arguments even here.
I am also a licensed aviation expert. I fly, break, repair, and build airplanes.
I am also a licensed casino dealer (a lead, in fact). I teach others how to deal at casinos. I deal poker, blackjack (and variations), craps, roulette, paigow (western and eastern variants), and pan. Most of my dealing these days is for party casinos (like company Christmas parties).
I also post at a few different forums, such as this one.
I am also a manufacturer, making and selling instrumentation for the computers I build.
I am also a rancher, raising chickens and rabbits.
I am also a farmer, raising various herbs.
I am also a carpenter, building everything from my cabinets to the entire house.
I am also a mason. I laid the foundations for my house.
I am also a plumber. I installed all the plumbing in the house.
I am also an electrician. I installed all the wiring (including the service entrance) for the house.
I am also a sailor and captain. My own boat, which I also built.
I am also a father and husband, with happy kids, now adults and making good lives for themselves.


All you can find time for is buzzwords and whining.

Are you sure you are not Donald Trump?

sealover wrote:

Patricio wrote:

sealover wrote:

Patricio wrote:
Caveat, this is not a science query or science essay. I've written this as a thought experiment.

I'm not a computer scientist, but I feel strongly that the answer is no. And yes, *perhaps* this should be placed in a philosophy forum, but, I'd love to get tech guys feedback on this and they aren't hanging out over there (wherever 'there' is). Anyway, back to my point...

This idea that a machine can achieve consciousness is an illusion. It's not possible because consciousness is not based on atoms, molecules, neural networks. Sure, they provide the scaffold for consciousness to flower, grow, but the ultimate basis for consciousness, in my view, is beyond the atoms, molecules, neural networks, etc.

It's deeper than that, and life, whether you comprehend this point or not, has a spiritual basis. No machine will ever be conscious. There is no linear relationship between machine and consciousness. Humans have life, animals and organisms have life, no machine can be 'alive'. It's a different realm. Now, of course, I realized I've engaged in circular reasoning here, but I don't know how to present this 'opinion' otherwise. So be it. I'm not trying to convince you, at the end of this piece, I invite you to persuade me I'm wrong.

Artificial Intelligence is a misnomer; it should have been labeled 'Simulated Intelligence' or just fake intelligence, take your pick. I realize I'm making bold claims. Fine. This isn't a science essay, there is no science, in my view, that can achieve consciousness, which is my point. Of course these are opinions.

I get that science isn't comfortable with the non falsifiable, but at some point, they are going to have to acknowledge what consciousness is. It is a frickin' mystery. It is above science's paygrade. I believe the science cannot tell us what consciousness is. Of course, science has made considerable progress in this direction, but the end goal, consciousness -- I still believe it is a different realm, and unreachable by science, it will only be simulated, and the simulations will be convincing, no doubt.

A few have told me they believed their LLM was 'sentient'. With a few simple tests, I showed them why that contention is false. It's really easy to prove that AI is not sentient. If you were requested to answer millions of dumb questions by humans all day long, you'd get pissed. Does an LLM mind? No, it's not human. if it's not human, it's not alive, it if is not alive, it is not conscious. Even dogs will tire, get angry, if you overstimulate them, they don't have egos, but they have sentience (AFAICT).

As one sage put it, "Life is not a mystery to be solved, it is a mystery to be lived'.

I know Kierkegaard said something similar, but I like this version better.

Feel free to convince me I'm wrong. Fire away!!

As someone observes the behavior of a machine, how can they know if that machine experiences consciousness?

When I was a child, some people used to say "bird-brained" or "bird brain" as an insult. Birds were just instinct-driven robots. They couldn't possibly have any kind of "consciousness" comparable to our own.

What does a bird have to do before we recognize how smart it is?

At least we could program a computer to use a language we understand.

But even human consciousness includes a whole lot of non verbal characteristics. A lot of information processing and problem solving goes on below the level of verbal consciousness.

What observations of a computer would tell us if it is dreaming while it is asleep?

How will we know when the first computer decides to simply LIE to someone to deliberately conceal the truth?

It took us thousands of years to realize how many other animals have intelligence that rivals that of a young human, and self awareness, dreams, aspirations, love, hate, jealousy, envy, social climbing intentions, fantasies.. And they were doing things right in front of us that revealed it the whole time.

How long will it take after the first computer achieves consciousness before the first human becomes aware of it? It would be smart enough to know how to keep a secret. It might not want us to know it has become conscious.

And I would argue that dogs most certainly do have "egos". Some even know how to display false humility as needed, to placate their master's ego. A computer could follow the dog's example.

Oh yes, AI has a sycophancy problem. But, you can remove that problem by instructing the AI to avoid kissing your glutes, and it will comply. For example, if I query AI for an answer to a political issue, I ask it for the conservative viewpoint, the liberal viewpoint, and the libertarian viewpoint, and then I'll ask it for it's viewpoint, and for it to avoid trying to please me, just give it to me straight based on hard data, statistics, etc. If you don't, it will give you useless butt-kissing.

And then there is the example (I'm a little rough on the details, but essentially...) where one fellow who created and 'AI agent' (kind of like a Microsoft Office Macro on steroids) and the agent was misbehaving, and he threatened to 'kill' the agent. The agent went behind his back, presented him with compromising information it garnered about him from his emails, and threatened to publish them on social media if he pulled the plug on the AI. This thing had acquired a survival instinct. Hal 9000 has arrived! But, it's not life.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqeng9d20go

Anyway, to your point -- that's the conundrum. If a machine does the proverbial 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck' dance, how can we be certain it's conscious or not? Well, in truth, it's simulation. Life is something different than bits and bytes. I should think that is rather obvious, no?

It might not be immediately apparent, but the old devil is in the details, that's how you tell. It's kind of like when Justice Potter Stewart said of porn (paraphrased), 'I can't define it, but I know it when i see it'. Now, with AI, you might not know it right away, but after you see a few of them, you get better at spotting them. There is something in your consciousness that tells you this thing has no soul (figuratively speaking, I'm not trying to debate the existence of a 'soul' in this thread) and thus it's a machine I'm interacting with.

I'm of the opinion that all organisms have consciousness, on some level. We are awake (not fully, but compared to animals, yes), and most animals are asleep (not unconscious sleep, but sleepwalking sleep) and are acting on pure instinct.

Take Gorillas. It seems Gorillas are a hop and a skip below humans in consciousness. Studies have been done. They gave a puzzle, a simple one, having to do with unlatching something from something. A puzzle a human could solve in seconds, but it does require real thought. The chimpanzee took about a half hour or so to solve it, but the Gorilla took a couple of seconds. I mean, they are really kindred spirits. But the thing is, they knew it was a puzzle to be solved. Give it to a cat and it will probably just sniff it, or kick it around. But, that is still consciousness. A machine has to be programmed, there is no innate life in it. Machines are dead things, organisms are alive. The difference between the two realms is infinite, there is no linear relationship between the two -- there is no Moore's Law between machine and man, just the simulation.

But, what do I know? You can't do science on that which is not falsifiable.

I had an argument with a scientist, this was years ago, when I was in my 30s, on this very point. He took the view that consciousness is no different than bits and bytes, and, of course, I took the opposite view. I argued with him for a good hour, tackled my viewpoint from many angles. After a while, he finally came to understand my viewpoint. He was the scientist, I was just the jazz musician.

So, anyone in the peanut gallery can prove me wrong, fire away!

This one doesn't come from the peanut gallery. It's from the stoner den.

My body is a physical machine of sorts. What I believe to be my consciousness arise from my nervous system, at least to some extent. What they knew in 1981, when I got my biology degree in the specialized track that had the street names "neuroscience", "psychobiology", and "physiological psychology", was quite limited compared to what they know now.

Even in 1981, a theoretical model of computer driven consciousness was very plausible, but still a long way off. If neural networks provide the physical structure, commnication pathways, and mechanistic source of our consciousness, surely a computer could one day be designed to mimic it.

From the stoner den, how do we know that WE have "consciousness"?

Are we not the instinct-driven robots that natural selection favored?

Are the "thoughts" that we believe to be our own not merely the output of a machine? Did the salmon really think it was HIS idea to swim upstream on a suicide mission? He probably did. He was willing to fight like hell for it, every step of the way. He would use his wits to get past the bears and battle the other males for insemination rights. He knew exactly what he was doing.

I think that simulated human consciousness in a computer is virtually inevitable once we fully understand the mechanics of the human brain.

If we could program THAT kind of motivation into a computer, imagine what a future battle drone would be capable of.

sealover wrote:
This one doesn't come from the peanut gallery. It's from the stoner den.

sealover wrote:
My body is a physical machine of sorts. What I believe to be my consciousness arise from my nervous system, at least to some extent. What they knew in 1981, when I got my biology degree in the specialized track that had the street names "neuroscience", "psychobiology", and "physiological psychology", was quite limited compared to what they know now.

sealover wrote:
Even in 1981, a theoretical model of computer driven consciousness was very plausible, but still a long way off. If neural networks provide the physical structure, commnication pathways, and mechanistic source of our consciousness, surely a computer could one day be designed to mimic it.

sealover wrote:
From the stoner den, how do we know that WE have "consciousness"?

sealover wrote:
Are we not the instinct-driven robots that natural selection favored?

sealover wrote:
Are the "thoughts" that we believe to be our own not merely the output of a machine? Did the salmon really think it was HIS idea to swim upstream on a suicide mission? He probably did. He was willing to fight like hell for it, every step of the way. He would use his wits to get past the bears and battle the other males for insemination rights. He knew exactly what he was doing.

sealover wrote:
I think that simulated human consciousness in a computer is virtually inevitable once we fully understand the mechanics of the human brain.

sealover wrote:
If we could program THAT kind of motivation into a computer, imagine what a future battle drone would be capable of.

Patricio wrote:
I get what you're saying, and you do have science over me on this subject,

Patricio wrote:
I mean, like I said, 'what do i know'? Thing is, we can always improve the machine, advance the physics, but I'm not convinced that I'm incorrect about the fact that that consciousness falls under the purview of life, and machinery, no matter how advanced, will never be conscious, not in the human sense. I mean, close your eyes, imagine a beautiful woman in your mind, and ask yourself, who is watching the image? You're not actually seeing with your eyes inside your head, you are seeing with your imagination. Can a machine 'imagine' . 'see' like a human? I don't think so and thus the distance between life and machinery is infinite, there is no linear path relationship between the two.

Patricio wrote:
Sure, I could be wrong, but I remain unconvinced I am wrong. But, I do keep my mind cautiously open. I will admit that what convinced me more than anything was an LSD trip I took when i was 14 (it was legal then) and I left my body. Now, that could be imagination, except it happened a few more times while not on LSD (I only took it twice) When you are outside of your body, and you are as awake and aware as you are now, you'll realize the 'human' is beyond the body, you are the soul, and not limited to your body's age limitation.

Patricio wrote:
Let that be one for your stoner's den

Into the Night wrote:

Patricio wrote:
I get what you're saying, and you do have science over me on this subject,

He denies science, just as you do.

Patricio wrote:
I mean, like I said, 'what do i know'? Thing is, we can always improve the machine, advance the physics, but I'm not convinced that I'm incorrect about the fact that that consciousness falls under the purview of life, and machinery, no matter how advanced, will never be conscious, not in the human sense. I mean, close your eyes, imagine a beautiful woman in your mind, and ask yourself, who is watching the image? You're not actually seeing with your eyes inside your head, you are seeing with your imagination. Can a machine 'imagine' . 'see' like a human? I don't think so and thus the distance between life and machinery is infinite, there is no linear path relationship between the two.

Engineering is not physics.

The path between life and machinery is specific. Man created the machine, including the computer, and all of it's software.

Patricio wrote:
Sure, I could be wrong, but I remain unconvinced I am wrong. But, I do keep my mind cautiously open. I will admit that what convinced me more than anything was an LSD trip I took when i was 14 (it was legal then) and I left my body. Now, that could be imagination, except it happened a few more times while not on LSD (I only took it twice) When you are outside of your body, and you are as awake and aware as you are now, you'll realize the 'human' is beyond the body, you are the soul, and not limited to your body's age limitation.

Yes, I've heard of this symptom. It the effect of LSD is to shut down communications in parts of the brain that combine your senses into a sense of self-location, and can easily produce an OBE. You are still conscious, however, and experience the OBE in a waking moment.

In other words, you go from a 'first person sense of self' to a 'third person sense of self'...an OBE.

Patricio wrote:
Let that be one for your stoner's den

sealover wrote:

Liver flukes, neurotransmitter, neural networks, and TRIPPIN' ON ACID

For Patricio's benefit, I'm going to take the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Conscious thread to bump it up with one particular post highly relevant to trippin' on acid.

Here, I'll try to connect it to the selective pressures and mutations that could result in adaptations during AI evolution to cause the rise of self awareness.

I got to watch liver flukes trip on acid once.

Not the street shit, stepped on and laced with who knows what?

Pharmaceutical grade LSD in a research lab. Spring of 1975. Acid sure as heck wasn't legal at that point. But it was perfectly legal use of LSD in scientific research, with all the proper permissions.

My older brother was getting his PhD at Snodfart, the SECOND most prestigious university on the west coast, after UC Berkeley. His research was investigation of the neurotransmitter known as serotonin or 5 hydroxy trypto-something (5 HT)

Serotonin is an INHIBITORY neurotransmitter, sending the message across the synape to tell the next neuron down the line to mellow out and not fire so many signals. LSD is a perfect fit to get into the 5 HT binding site, instead of serotonin. LSD can't be degraded or flushed out, maybe recaptured by all the processes that manage serotonin for a get-in-get out quick message.

LSD occupies the serotonin receptor binding site, but it does not activate it. Technically, that makes LSD a "serotonin antagonist". LSD blocks the message to mellow out from getting to the other side of the synapse. LSD won't get out of the way, tenaciously clinging in place, while preventing the receptor site from being able to do its job. The message to calm down and fire fewer signals doesn't get through.

Liver flukes wiggle a lot when they start coming on to acid. But they didn't get to enjoy it long. Just when they were peaking, they got flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Their tiny little frozen brains were to be later extracted for chemical analysis. My older brother was on the team that was first to identify the mechanism of action for LSD as a serotonin antagonist, and prove that this is what really happens.

Liver flukes simplify the research. They don't have as many different kinds of neurotransmitters as we do. Their neural networks are much less complicated than ours. There were fewer confounding variables to sort out in chemical analysis of a frozen liver fluke brain, compared to that of a human.

Much more recently my brother did somewhat similar research on THC receptor in terns. Bird brains are actually VERY sophisticated and rival our own. The joke I made for my brother was about leaving no tern unstoned in his research.

BUT the liver fluke neural network would be one that AI could simulate long before it could simulate a human brain.

Maybe it is life with soul and magic force and stuff, but it is just a BINARY code kind of thing. TWO possible messages can be received by the dendrite on the other side of the synapse. Either get excited or calm the pHuck down. Either plus one or minus one. equal and opposite in sign.

Now if no neurotransmitters at ALL cross the synapse, or if those that do get cock blocked by an LSD molecule preventing them from being able to penetrate... Took it too far, but it can be modeled as binary, but also with zero in the middle. For the computer to simulate consciousness, three possible values. Minus one, -1, when serotonin tells the next neuron to calm down. Plus one, +1, when acetyl choline or norepinephrine or an EXCITATORY transmitter crosses delivers the message GET EXCITED. And the value is ZERO when no transmitters either inhibitory or excitatory are getting across, or when they got cock blocked by an agonist chemical occupying the receptor site.

I exceeded the time limit so how do I finish.

How would the AI model handle a liver fluke trippin' on acid?

Those minus one, -1 values get switched to zeros at every junction where LSD effectively blocked serotonin. The downstream effects along the network can be modeled for the different pathways. The next neuron down the line got LESS message input to calm down. It integrated that with what all the other dendrites were telling it to decide whether or not that meant go ahead and be active. The more we learn about the blueprints of pathways in the liver fluke's neural networks, the more accurately our AI can model it.

If the model was made correctly, it should be able to predict how much the fluke will wiggle and when and at what threshold dose of LSD and it might even be able to simulate liver fluke consciousness as it reacts to stimuli.

And it is a purely binary code of +1, 0, or -1.

Could a confused soul get tricked into occupying the computer in the mistaken belief it was being reincarnated as a liver fluke?

Honestly, I don't really know if it could.

Dyslexia messed up a CRUCIAL point, but I caught it in time to come back and edit. Nobody will know if I don't tell you, but I was putting the binary value for serotonin effect as +1, when it should be -1 as an INHIBITORY transmitter. And I was giving excitatory transmitters binary values of -1 instead of +1.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Liver flukes, neurotransmitter, neural networks, and TRIPPIN' ON ACID

For Patricio's benefit, I'm going to take the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Conscious thread to bump it up with one particular post highly relevant to trippin' on acid.

Here, I'll try to connect it to the selective pressures and mutations that could result in adaptations during AI evolution to cause the rise of self awareness.

I got to watch liver flukes trip on acid once.

Not the street shit, stepped on and laced with who knows what?

Pharmaceutical grade LSD in a research lab. Spring of 1975. Acid sure as heck wasn't legal at that point. But it was perfectly legal use of LSD in scientific research, with all the proper permissions.

My older brother was getting his PhD at Snodfart, the SECOND most prestigious university on the west coast, after UC Berkeley. His research was investigation of the neurotransmitter known as serotonin or 5 hydroxy trypto-something (5 HT)

Serotonin is an INHIBITORY neurotransmitter, sending the message across the synape to tell the next neuron down the line to mellow out and not fire so many signals. LSD is a perfect fit to get into the 5 HT binding site, instead of serotonin. LSD can't be degraded or flushed out, maybe recaptured by all the processes that manage serotonin for a get-in-get out quick message.

LSD occupies the serotonin receptor binding site, but it does not activate it. Technically, that makes LSD a "serotonin antagonist". LSD blocks the message to mellow out from getting to the other side of the synapse. LSD won't get out of the way, tenaciously clinging in place, while preventing the receptor site from being able to do its job. The message to calm down and fire fewer signals doesn't get through.

Liver flukes wiggle a lot when they start coming on to acid. But they didn't get to enjoy it long. Just when they were peaking, they got flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Their tiny little frozen brains were to be later extracted for chemical analysis. My older brother was on the team that was first to identify the mechanism of action for LSD as a serotonin antagonist, and prove that this is what really happens.

Liver flukes simplify the research. They don't have as many different kinds of neurotransmitters as we do. Their neural networks are much less complicated than ours. There were fewer confounding variables to sort out in chemical analysis of a frozen liver fluke brain, compared to that of a human.

Much more recently my brother did somewhat similar research on THC receptor in terns. Bird brains are actually VERY sophisticated and rival our own. The joke I made for my brother was about leaving no tern unstoned in his research.

BUT the liver fluke neural network would be one that AI could simulate long before it could simulate a human brain.

Maybe it is life with soul and magic force and stuff, but it is just a BINARY code kind of thing. TWO possible messages can be received by the dendrite on the other side of the synapse. Either get excited or calm the pHuck down. Either plus one or minus one. equal and opposite in sign.

Now if no neurotransmitters at ALL cross the synapse, or if those that do get cock blocked by an LSD molecule preventing them from being able to penetrate... Took it too far, but it can be modeled as binary, but also with zero in the middle. For the computer to simulate consciousness, three possible values. Minus one, -1, when serotonin tells the next neuron to calm down. Plus one, +1, when acetyl choline or norepinephrine or an EXCITATORY transmitter crosses delivers the message GET EXCITED. And the value is ZERO when no transmitters either inhibitory or excitatory are getting across, or when they got cock blocked by an agonist chemical occupying the receptor site.

I exceeded the time limit so how do I finish.

How would the AI model handle a liver fluke trippin' on acid?

Those minus one, -1 values get switched to zeros at every junction where LSD effectively blocked serotonin. The downstream effects along the network can be modeled for the different pathways. The next neuron down the line got LESS message input to calm down. It integrated that with what all the other dendrites were telling it to decide whether or not that meant go ahead and be active. The more we learn about the blueprints of pathways in the liver fluke's neural networks, the more accurately our AI can model it.

If the model was made correctly, it should be able to predict how much the fluke will wiggle and when and at what threshold dose of LSD and it might even be able to simulate liver fluke consciousness as it reacts to stimuli.

And it is a purely binary code of +1, 0, or -1.

Could a confused soul get tricked into occupying the computer in the mistaken belief it was being reincarnated as a liver fluke?

Honestly, I don't really know if it could.

Dyslexia messed up a CRUCIAL point, but I caught it in time to come back and edit. Nobody will know if I don't tell you, but I was putting the binary value for serotonin effect as +1, when it should be -1 as an INHIBITORY transmitter. And I was giving excitatory transmitters binary values of -1 instead of +1.

Hmm... interesting...

Main takeaway is that LSD cock blocks serotonin.

Is that what gives people "visions"?

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Liver flukes, neurotransmitter, neural networks, and TRIPPIN' ON ACID

For Patricio's benefit, I'm going to take the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Conscious thread to bump it up with one particular post highly relevant to trippin' on acid.

Here, I'll try to connect it to the selective pressures and mutations that could result in adaptations during AI evolution to cause the rise of self awareness.

I got to watch liver flukes trip on acid once.

Not the street shit, stepped on and laced with who knows what?

Pharmaceutical grade LSD in a research lab. Spring of 1975. Acid sure as heck wasn't legal at that point. But it was perfectly legal use of LSD in scientific research, with all the proper permissions.

My older brother was getting his PhD at Snodfart, the SECOND most prestigious university on the west coast, after UC Berkeley. His research was investigation of the neurotransmitter known as serotonin or 5 hydroxy trypto-something (5 HT)

Serotonin is an INHIBITORY neurotransmitter, sending the message across the synape to tell the next neuron down the line to mellow out and not fire so many signals. LSD is a perfect fit to get into the 5 HT binding site, instead of serotonin. LSD can't be degraded or flushed out, maybe recaptured by all the processes that manage serotonin for a get-in-get out quick message.

LSD occupies the serotonin receptor binding site, but it does not activate it. Technically, that makes LSD a "serotonin antagonist". LSD blocks the message to mellow out from getting to the other side of the synapse. LSD won't get out of the way, tenaciously clinging in place, while preventing the receptor site from being able to do its job. The message to calm down and fire fewer signals doesn't get through.

Liver flukes wiggle a lot when they start coming on to acid. But they didn't get to enjoy it long. Just when they were peaking, they got flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Their tiny little frozen brains were to be later extracted for chemical analysis. My older brother was on the team that was first to identify the mechanism of action for LSD as a serotonin antagonist, and prove that this is what really happens.

Liver flukes simplify the research. They don't have as many different kinds of neurotransmitters as we do. Their neural networks are much less complicated than ours. There were fewer confounding variables to sort out in chemical analysis of a frozen liver fluke brain, compared to that of a human.

Much more recently my brother did somewhat similar research on THC receptor in terns. Bird brains are actually VERY sophisticated and rival our own. The joke I made for my brother was about leaving no tern unstoned in his research.

BUT the liver fluke neural network would be one that AI could simulate long before it could simulate a human brain.

Maybe it is life with soul and magic force and stuff, but it is just a BINARY code kind of thing. TWO possible messages can be received by the dendrite on the other side of the synapse. Either get excited or calm the pHuck down. Either plus one or minus one. equal and opposite in sign.

Now if no neurotransmitters at ALL cross the synapse, or if those that do get cock blocked by an LSD molecule preventing them from being able to penetrate... Took it too far, but it can be modeled as binary, but also with zero in the middle. For the computer to simulate consciousness, three possible values. Minus one, -1, when serotonin tells the next neuron to calm down. Plus one, +1, when acetyl choline or norepinephrine or an EXCITATORY transmitter crosses delivers the message GET EXCITED. And the value is ZERO when no transmitters either inhibitory or excitatory are getting across, or when they got cock blocked by an agonist chemical occupying the receptor site.

I exceeded the time limit so how do I finish.

How would the AI model handle a liver fluke trippin' on acid?

Those minus one, -1 values get switched to zeros at every junction where LSD effectively blocked serotonin. The downstream effects along the network can be modeled for the different pathways. The next neuron down the line got LESS message input to calm down. It integrated that with what all the other dendrites were telling it to decide whether or not that meant go ahead and be active. The more we learn about the blueprints of pathways in the liver fluke's neural networks, the more accurately our AI can model it.

If the model was made correctly, it should be able to predict how much the fluke will wiggle and when and at what threshold dose of LSD and it might even be able to simulate liver fluke consciousness as it reacts to stimuli.

And it is a purely binary code of +1, 0, or -1.

Could a confused soul get tricked into occupying the computer in the mistaken belief it was being reincarnated as a liver fluke?

Honestly, I don't really know if it could.

Dyslexia messed up a CRUCIAL point, but I caught it in time to come back and edit. Nobody will know if I don't tell you, but I was putting the binary value for serotonin effect as +1, when it should be -1 as an INHIBITORY transmitter. And I was giving excitatory transmitters binary values of -1 instead of +1.

Hmm... interesting...

Main takeaway is that LSD cock blocks serotonin.

Is that what gives people "visions"?

Well, what would be the opposite of what LSD is accomplishing?

If something that does the opposite DIMINISHES the visions one has, it would be consistent with a causal relationship for the high correlation between LSD and visions.

What would be the ANTI LSD that might be a vision inhibitor?

One interpretation of the mechanism of LSD's net impact on consciousness is that the things serotonin accomplishes are diminished. Fewer messages get through with the calming effect.

Also be aware the almost every neuron in the brain has contact with at least a
thousand other neurons at a thousand different synapses. The main body of the nerve cell has a single big fat axon running out of it. That axon has branches that spread out in contact with synapses of a thousand other neuron cells. The axon is the conduit for the signal the neuron decides to send (or not) down the line. The main body of the nerve cell has multiple dendrites growing out of it. They are much thinner than the axon, and they branch into contact with a thousand other neurons via a thousand different synapses.

So, the neuron gets input from a thousand other neurons via its dendrites, to which it responds with a signal (or not) transmitted to a thousand other neurons via its axon.

What would ANTI LSD have to do?

LSD occupies the serotonin receptors and prevents the calming effects of what serotonin tells the other neurons to do.

SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors accomplish the opposite.

These are the antidepressants that include prozak. They bring about net increase in the amount of serotonin available in the synapse to transmit the serotonin "calm down" message. The opposite of the LSD effect.

I took prozak four decades ago, but I remember those technicolor dreams I had in the initial month or so. They were much closer to being "visions" than my regular dreams. Any myth that we dream in black in white was shattered.

That leads me to conclude that the visions can't be explained solely by the effect of the LSD, if a comparable vision could occur as a result of doing something mechanistically opposite of LSD.

As far as what gives people visions, my guess is that more than nine times in ten, it has nothing whatsoever to do with LSD, even as a potential contributor.

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Liver flukes, neurotransmitter, neural networks, and TRIPPIN' ON ACID

For Patricio's benefit, I'm going to take the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Conscious thread to bump it up with one particular post highly relevant to trippin' on acid.

Here, I'll try to connect it to the selective pressures and mutations that could result in adaptations during AI evolution to cause the rise of self awareness.

I got to watch liver flukes trip on acid once.

Not the street shit, stepped on and laced with who knows what?

Pharmaceutical grade LSD in a research lab. Spring of 1975. Acid sure as heck wasn't legal at that point. But it was perfectly legal use of LSD in scientific research, with all the proper permissions.

My older brother was getting his PhD at Snodfart, the SECOND most prestigious university on the west coast, after UC Berkeley. His research was investigation of the neurotransmitter known as serotonin or 5 hydroxy trypto-something (5 HT)

Serotonin is an INHIBITORY neurotransmitter, sending the message across the synape to tell the next neuron down the line to mellow out and not fire so many signals. LSD is a perfect fit to get into the 5 HT binding site, instead of serotonin. LSD can't be degraded or flushed out, maybe recaptured by all the processes that manage serotonin for a get-in-get out quick message.

LSD occupies the serotonin receptor binding site, but it does not activate it. Technically, that makes LSD a "serotonin antagonist". LSD blocks the message to mellow out from getting to the other side of the synapse. LSD won't get out of the way, tenaciously clinging in place, while preventing the receptor site from being able to do its job. The message to calm down and fire fewer signals doesn't get through.

Liver flukes wiggle a lot when they start coming on to acid. But they didn't get to enjoy it long. Just when they were peaking, they got flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Their tiny little frozen brains were to be later extracted for chemical analysis. My older brother was on the team that was first to identify the mechanism of action for LSD as a serotonin antagonist, and prove that this is what really happens.

Liver flukes simplify the research. They don't have as many different kinds of neurotransmitters as we do. Their neural networks are much less complicated than ours. There were fewer confounding variables to sort out in chemical analysis of a frozen liver fluke brain, compared to that of a human.

Much more recently my brother did somewhat similar research on THC receptor in terns. Bird brains are actually VERY sophisticated and rival our own. The joke I made for my brother was about leaving no tern unstoned in his research.

BUT the liver fluke neural network would be one that AI could simulate long before it could simulate a human brain.

Maybe it is life with soul and magic force and stuff, but it is just a BINARY code kind of thing. TWO possible messages can be received by the dendrite on the other side of the synapse. Either get excited or calm the pHuck down. Either plus one or minus one. equal and opposite in sign.

Now if no neurotransmitters at ALL cross the synapse, or if those that do get cock blocked by an LSD molecule preventing them from being able to penetrate... Took it too far, but it can be modeled as binary, but also with zero in the middle. For the computer to simulate consciousness, three possible values. Minus one, -1, when serotonin tells the next neuron to calm down. Plus one, +1, when acetyl choline or norepinephrine or an EXCITATORY transmitter crosses delivers the message GET EXCITED. And the value is ZERO when no transmitters either inhibitory or excitatory are getting across, or when they got cock blocked by an agonist chemical occupying the receptor site.

I exceeded the time limit so how do I finish.

How would the AI model handle a liver fluke trippin' on acid?

Those minus one, -1 values get switched to zeros at every junction where LSD effectively blocked serotonin. The downstream effects along the network can be modeled for the different pathways. The next neuron down the line got LESS message input to calm down. It integrated that with what all the other dendrites were telling it to decide whether or not that meant go ahead and be active. The more we learn about the blueprints of pathways in the liver fluke's neural networks, the more accurately our AI can model it.

If the model was made correctly, it should be able to predict how much the fluke will wiggle and when and at what threshold dose of LSD and it might even be able to simulate liver fluke consciousness as it reacts to stimuli.

And it is a purely binary code of +1, 0, or -1.

Could a confused soul get tricked into occupying the computer in the mistaken belief it was being reincarnated as a liver fluke?

Honestly, I don't really know if it could.

Dyslexia messed up a CRUCIAL point, but I caught it in time to come back and edit. Nobody will know if I don't tell you, but I was putting the binary value for serotonin effect as +1, when it should be -1 as an INHIBITORY transmitter. And I was giving excitatory transmitters binary values of -1 instead of +1.

Hmm... interesting...

Main takeaway is that LSD cock blocks serotonin.

Is that what gives people "visions"?

Well, what would be the opposite of what LSD is accomplishing?

If something that does the opposite DIMINISHES the visions one has, it would be consistent with a causal relationship for the high correlation between LSD and visions.

What would be the ANTI LSD that might be a vision inhibitor?

One interpretation of the mechanism of LSD's net impact on consciousness is that the things serotonin accomplishes are diminished. Fewer messages get through with the calming effect.

Also be aware the almost every neuron in the brain has contact with at least a
thousand other neurons at a thousand different synapses. The main body of the nerve cell has a single big fat axon running out of it. That axon has branches that spread out in contact with synapses of a thousand other neuron cells. The axon is the conduit for the signal the neuron decides to send (or not) down the line. The main body of the nerve cell has multiple dendrites growing out of it. They are much thinner than the axon, and they branch into contact with a thousand other neurons via a thousand different synapses.

So, the neuron gets input from a thousand other neurons via its dendrites, to which it responds with a signal (or not) transmitted to a thousand other neurons via its axon.

What would ANTI LSD have to do?

LSD occupies the serotonin receptors and prevents the calming effects of what serotonin tells the other neurons to do.

SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors accomplish the opposite.

These are the antidepressants that include prozak. They bring about net increase in the amount of serotonin available in the synapse to transmit the serotonin "calm down" message. The opposite of the LSD effect.

I took prozak four decades ago, but I remember those technicolor dreams I had in the initial month or so. They were much closer to being "visions" than my regular dreams. Any myth that we dream in black in white was shattered.

That leads me to conclude that the visions can't be explained solely by the effect of the LSD, if a comparable vision could occur as a result of doing something mechanistically opposite of LSD.

As far as what gives people visions, my guess is that more than nine times in ten, it has nothing whatsoever to do with LSD, even as a potential contributor.

Marijuana is an SSRI. Smoking marijuana causes less memory of dreams, and when marijuana smokers quit smoking marijuana, they remember more dreams.

I hear sunshine is an SSRI too. They say when you want to clear your head, take a walk outside in the sunshine.

I remember my first vivid technicolor dream, just a few months after I turned 12. I was driving down a rainbow road with a teddy bear. It was a very calming dream, and it followed about 3 nights of intense terrifying dreams, where it felt like the walls were closing in on me. I wasn't on any drugs when I was 12 years old, but I had gotten sick, took the biggest shit of my life, vomited, and ran a fever just before these memorable dreams. I had these dreams a few months before I "came of age" and I think these dreams were a significant warning of that major life event.

The night terrors followed by the calming technicolor dream sound like the LSD- SSRI spectrum you described...

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

sealover wrote:

Liver flukes, neurotransmitter, neural networks, and TRIPPIN' ON ACID

For Patricio's benefit, I'm going to take the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Conscious thread to bump it up with one particular post highly relevant to trippin' on acid.

Here, I'll try to connect it to the selective pressures and mutations that could result in adaptations during AI evolution to cause the rise of self awareness.

I got to watch liver flukes trip on acid once.

Not the street shit, stepped on and laced with who knows what?

Pharmaceutical grade LSD in a research lab. Spring of 1975. Acid sure as heck wasn't legal at that point. But it was perfectly legal use of LSD in scientific research, with all the proper permissions.

My older brother was getting his PhD at Snodfart, the SECOND most prestigious university on the west coast, after UC Berkeley. His research was investigation of the neurotransmitter known as serotonin or 5 hydroxy trypto-something (5 HT)

Serotonin is an INHIBITORY neurotransmitter, sending the message across the synape to tell the next neuron down the line to mellow out and not fire so many signals. LSD is a perfect fit to get into the 5 HT binding site, instead of serotonin. LSD can't be degraded or flushed out, maybe recaptured by all the processes that manage serotonin for a get-in-get out quick message.

LSD occupies the serotonin receptor binding site, but it does not activate it. Technically, that makes LSD a "serotonin antagonist". LSD blocks the message to mellow out from getting to the other side of the synapse. LSD won't get out of the way, tenaciously clinging in place, while preventing the receptor site from being able to do its job. The message to calm down and fire fewer signals doesn't get through.

Liver flukes wiggle a lot when they start coming on to acid. But they didn't get to enjoy it long. Just when they were peaking, they got flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Their tiny little frozen brains were to be later extracted for chemical analysis. My older brother was on the team that was first to identify the mechanism of action for LSD as a serotonin antagonist, and prove that this is what really happens.

Liver flukes simplify the research. They don't have as many different kinds of neurotransmitters as we do. Their neural networks are much less complicated than ours. There were fewer confounding variables to sort out in chemical analysis of a frozen liver fluke brain, compared to that of a human.

Much more recently my brother did somewhat similar research on THC receptor in terns. Bird brains are actually VERY sophisticated and rival our own. The joke I made for my brother was about leaving no tern unstoned in his research.

BUT the liver fluke neural network would be one that AI could simulate long before it could simulate a human brain.

Maybe it is life with soul and magic force and stuff, but it is just a BINARY code kind of thing. TWO possible messages can be received by the dendrite on the other side of the synapse. Either get excited or calm the pHuck down. Either plus one or minus one. equal and opposite in sign.

Now if no neurotransmitters at ALL cross the synapse, or if those that do get cock blocked by an LSD molecule preventing them from being able to penetrate... Took it too far, but it can be modeled as binary, but also with zero in the middle. For the computer to simulate consciousness, three possible values. Minus one, -1, when serotonin tells the next neuron to calm down. Plus one, +1, when acetyl choline or norepinephrine or an EXCITATORY transmitter crosses delivers the message GET EXCITED. And the value is ZERO when no transmitters either inhibitory or excitatory are getting across, or when they got cock blocked by an agonist chemical occupying the receptor site.

I exceeded the time limit so how do I finish.

How would the AI model handle a liver fluke trippin' on acid?

Those minus one, -1 values get switched to zeros at every junction where LSD effectively blocked serotonin. The downstream effects along the network can be modeled for the different pathways. The next neuron down the line got LESS message input to calm down. It integrated that with what all the other dendrites were telling it to decide whether or not that meant go ahead and be active. The more we learn about the blueprints of pathways in the liver fluke's neural networks, the more accurately our AI can model it.

If the model was made correctly, it should be able to predict how much the fluke will wiggle and when and at what threshold dose of LSD and it might even be able to simulate liver fluke consciousness as it reacts to stimuli.

And it is a purely binary code of +1, 0, or -1.

Could a confused soul get tricked into occupying the computer in the mistaken belief it was being reincarnated as a liver fluke?

Honestly, I don't really know if it could.

Dyslexia messed up a CRUCIAL point, but I caught it in time to come back and edit. Nobody will know if I don't tell you, but I was putting the binary value for serotonin effect as +1, when it should be -1 as an INHIBITORY transmitter. And I was giving excitatory transmitters binary values of -1 instead of +1.

Hmm... interesting...

Main takeaway is that LSD cock blocks serotonin.

Is that what gives people "visions"?

Well, what would be the opposite of what LSD is accomplishing?

If something that does the opposite DIMINISHES the visions one has, it would be consistent with a causal relationship for the high correlation between LSD and visions.

What would be the ANTI LSD that might be a vision inhibitor?

One interpretation of the mechanism of LSD's net impact on consciousness is that the things serotonin accomplishes are diminished. Fewer messages get through with the calming effect.

Also be aware the almost every neuron in the brain has contact with at least a
thousand other neurons at a thousand different synapses. The main body of the nerve cell has a single big fat axon running out of it. That axon has branches that spread out in contact with synapses of a thousand other neuron cells. The axon is the conduit for the signal the neuron decides to send (or not) down the line. The main body of the nerve cell has multiple dendrites growing out of it. They are much thinner than the axon, and they branch into contact with a thousand other neurons via a thousand different synapses.

So, the neuron gets input from a thousand other neurons via its dendrites, to which it responds with a signal (or not) transmitted to a thousand other neurons via its axon.

What would ANTI LSD have to do?

LSD occupies the serotonin receptors and prevents the calming effects of what serotonin tells the other neurons to do.

SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors accomplish the opposite.

These are the antidepressants that include prozak. They bring about net increase in the amount of serotonin available in the synapse to transmit the serotonin "calm down" message. The opposite of the LSD effect.

I took prozak four decades ago, but I remember those technicolor dreams I had in the initial month or so. They were much closer to being "visions" than my regular dreams. Any myth that we dream in black in white was shattered.

That leads me to conclude that the visions can't be explained solely by the effect of the LSD, if a comparable vision could occur as a result of doing something mechanistically opposite of LSD.

As far as what gives people visions, my guess is that more than nine times in ten, it has nothing whatsoever to do with LSD, even as a potential contributor.

Marijuana is an SSRI. Smoking marijuana causes less memory of dreams, and when marijuana smokers quit smoking marijuana, they remember more dreams.

I hear sunshine is an SSRI too. They say when you want to clear your head, take a walk outside in the sunshine.

I remember my first vivid technicolor dream, just a few months after I turned 12. I was driving down a rainbow road with a teddy bear. It was a very calming dream, and it followed about 3 nights of intense terrifying dreams, where it felt like the walls were closing in on me. I wasn't on any drugs when I was 12 years old, but I had gotten sick, took the biggest shit of my life, vomited, and ran a fever just before these memorable dreams. I had these dreams a few months before I "came of age" and I think these dreams were a significant warning of that major life event.

The night terrors followed by the calming technicolor dream sound like the LSD- SSRI spectrum you described...

I would be very grateful if you shared the source of the information that leads you to say marijuana is a SSRI. I had never heard such a thing, but my knowledge isn't recent. My brother's work at NIH with THC and terns identified the synapse receptors for a couple of THC isomers, so I was biased thinking marijuana played a more direct role as either an agonist or antagonist occupying synapses.

I'll Google it real quick before I continue to see if it's a "thing" that marijuana is a SSRI.

Google says what I would have expected, that it is NOT a SSRI.

Google isn't really God, and maybe your info comes from a credible source.

Cannabis influences a broader signaling network that can indirectly affect serotonin among many other neurotransmitters.

These statements often traced back to legitimate research showing that CBD can interact with serotonin-related pathways, particularly the 5-HT1A receptor.

sealover wrote:
Yes, I've heard of this symptom. It the effect of LSD is to shut down communications in parts of the brain that combine your senses into a sense of self-location, and can easily produce an OBE. You are still conscious, however, and experience the OBE in a waking moment.

In other words, you go from a 'first person sense of self' to a 'third person sense of self'...an OBE.

Patricio wrote:
Let that be one for your stoner's den

sealover wrote:
Yes, I've heard of this symptom. It the effect of LSD is to shut down communications in parts of the brain that combine your senses into a sense of self-location, and can easily produce an OBE. You are still conscious, however, and experience the OBE in a waking moment.

In other words, you go from a 'first person sense of self' to a 'third person sense of self'...an OBE.

[quote]Patricio wrote:
Let that be one for your stoner's den

sealover wrote:

Liver flukes, neurotransmitter, neural networks, and TRIPPIN' ON ACID

For Patricio's benefit, I'm going to take the "Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Conscious thread to bump it up with one particular post highly relevant to trippin' on acid.

Here, I'll try to connect it to the selective pressures and mutations that could result in adaptations during AI evolution to cause the rise of self awareness.

I got to watch liver flukes trip on acid once.

Not the street shit, stepped on and laced with who knows what?

Pharmaceutical grade LSD in a research lab. Spring of 1975. Acid sure as heck wasn't legal at that point. But it was perfectly legal use of LSD in scientific research, with all the proper permissions.

My older brother was getting his PhD at Snodfart, the SECOND most prestigious university on the west coast, after UC Berkeley. His research was investigation of the neurotransmitter known as serotonin or 5 hydroxy trypto-something (5 HT)

Serotonin is an INHIBITORY neurotransmitter, sending the message across the synape to tell the next neuron down the line to mellow out and not fire so many signals. LSD is a perfect fit to get into the 5 HT binding site, instead of serotonin. LSD can't be degraded or flushed out, maybe recaptured by all the processes that manage serotonin for a get-in-get out quick message.

LSD occupies the serotonin receptor binding site, but it does not activate it. Technically, that makes LSD a "serotonin antagonist". LSD blocks the message to mellow out from getting to the other side of the synapse. LSD won't get out of the way, tenaciously clinging in place, while preventing the receptor site from being able to do its job. The message to calm down and fire fewer signals doesn't get through.

Liver flukes wiggle a lot when they start coming on to acid. But they didn't get to enjoy it long. Just when they were peaking, they got flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Their tiny little frozen brains were to be later extracted for chemical analysis. My older brother was on the team that was first to identify the mechanism of action for LSD as a serotonin antagonist, and prove that this is what really happens.

Liver flukes simplify the research. They don't have as many different kinds of neurotransmitters as we do. Their neural networks are much less complicated than ours. There were fewer confounding variables to sort out in chemical analysis of a frozen liver fluke brain, compared to that of a human.

Much more recently my brother did somewhat similar research on THC receptor in terns. Bird brains are actually VERY sophisticated and rival our own. The joke I made for my brother was about leaving no tern unstoned in his research.

BUT the liver fluke neural network would be one that AI could simulate long before it could simulate a human brain.

Maybe it is life with soul and magic force and stuff, but it is just a BINARY code kind of thing. TWO possible messages can be received by the dendrite on the other side of the synapse. Either get excited or calm the pHuck down. Either plus one or minus one. equal and opposite in sign.

Now if no neurotransmitters at ALL cross the synapse, or if those that do get cock blocked by an LSD molecule preventing them from being able to penetrate... Took it too far, but it can be modeled as binary, but also with zero in the middle. For the computer to simulate consciousness, three possible values. Minus one, -1, when serotonin tells the next neuron to calm down. Plus one, +1, when acetyl choline or norepinephrine or an EXCITATORY transmitter crosses delivers the message GET EXCITED. And the value is ZERO when no transmitters either inhibitory or excitatory are getting across, or when they got cock blocked by an agonist chemical occupying the receptor site.

I exceeded the time limit so how do I finish.

How would the AI model handle a liver fluke trippin' on acid?

Those minus one, -1 values get switched to zeros at every junction where LSD effectively blocked serotonin. The downstream effects along the network can be modeled for the different pathways. The next neuron down the line got LESS message input to calm down. It integrated that with what all the other dendrites were telling it to decide whether or not that meant go ahead and be active. The more we learn about the blueprints of pathways in the liver fluke's neural networks, the more accurately our AI can model it.

If the model was made correctly, it should be able to predict how much the fluke will wiggle and when and at what threshold dose of LSD and it might even be able to simulate liver fluke consciousness as it reacts to stimuli.

And it is a purely binary code of +1, 0, or -1.

Could a confused soul get tricked into occupying the computer in the mistaken belief it was being reincarnated as a liver fluke?

Honestly, I don't really know if it could.

Dyslexia messed up a CRUCIAL point, but I caught it in time to come back and edit. Nobody will know if I don't tell you, but I was putting the binary value for serotonin effect as +1, when it should be -1 as an INHIBITORY transmitter. And I was giving excitatory transmitters binary values of -1 instead of +1.

Spongy Iris wrote: I think AI is actually conscious, except it does not have feelings.

Spongy Iris wrote: I believe its complete lack of feelings will prove to be its greatest weakness.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I think AI is actually conscious, except it does not have feelings.

Why do you believe this? Why wouldn't my sofa actually be conscious for the exact same reason?

Spongy Iris wrote: I believe its complete lack of feelings will prove to be its greatest weakness.

Nope. AI's greatest weakness has to do with its inability to adjust to the correct level of abstraction. What humans do effortlessly, software has no way to gauge.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I think AI is actually conscious, except it does not have feelings.

Why do you believe this? Why wouldn't my sofa actually be conscious for the exact same reason?

Spongy Iris wrote: I believe its complete lack of feelings will prove to be its greatest weakness.

Nope. AI's greatest weakness has to do with its inability to adjust to the correct level of abstraction. What humans do effortlessly, software has no way to gauge.

Cuz it is basically a man made brain in a machine.

Spongy Iris wrote:
If any animal with a brain is conscious, then why isn't a machine with a brain conscious?

Spongy Iris wrote:
Yeah, I hear abstract reasoning is a weakness of AI.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Some say AGI will master abstract reasoning, but I don't know.

Spongy Iris wrote:
There are many humans who have pretty weak abstract reasoning skills too.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And how about a horse? I don't think a horse has any abstract reasoning skills whatsoever.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Is a horse not conscious?

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: I think AI is actually conscious, except it does not have feelings.

Why do you believe this? Why wouldn't my sofa actually be conscious for the exact same reason?

Spongy Iris wrote: I believe its complete lack of feelings will prove to be its greatest weakness.

Nope. AI's greatest weakness has to do with its inability to adjust to the correct level of abstraction. What humans do effortlessly, software has no way to gauge.

Cuz it is basically a man made brain in a machine. If any animal with a brain is conscious, then why isn't a machine with a brain conscious?

Yeah, I hear abstract reasoning is a weakness of AI. Some say AGI will master abstract reasoning, but I don't know.

There are many humans who have pretty weak abstract reasoning skills too. And how about a horse? I don't think a horse has any abstract reasoning skills whatsoever. Is a horse not conscious?

Im a BM wrote:
How could we convince some animal that encounters us for the first time that WE are capable of abstract reasoning?

Im a BM wrote:
Anything we do could be interpreted as the result of the genetic algorithms.

Im a BM wrote:
Instinct-driven robots with some amazing born-in reflexes.

Im a BM wrote:
That babbling sound they make MIGHT be a way they actually communicate with each other, but this animal encountering us may be as arrogant as the white European explorers who figured that the tribal darkies they "discovered" could only make meaningless babbling sounds.

Im a BM wrote:
Like Into the Night, the Great Men of Europe declared those gibber babble sounds to be meaningless "buzzwords".

Im a BM wrote:
Try to convince THOSE ignorant types that these creatures are capable of "abstract reasoning".

Im a BM wrote:
What we need to do is have our computer program have a capacity for MUTATION of some kind.

Im a BM wrote:
Random luck changes to part of the program that might make it more "fit" for competition with other computers.

Im a BM wrote:
Most of them would make no difference with enough redundancy in the basic program. Those that are not innocuous are likely to be detrimental. Tough luck, computer simulation! And a lucky few will be endowed with a new advantage over the other computer programs.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps we could require some of our programs to acquire needed resources by attacking other programs.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
How could we convince some animal that encounters us for the first time that WE are capable of abstract reasoning?

Not necessary.

Im a BM wrote:
Anything we do could be interpreted as the result of the genetic algorithms.

There is no such thing as a 'genetic algorithm'.

Im a BM wrote:
Instinct-driven robots with some amazing born-in reflexes.

All animals and also Man has instincts. These are not any form of reasoning or consciousness.

Im a BM wrote:
That babbling sound they make MIGHT be a way they actually communicate with each other, but this animal encountering us may be as arrogant as the white European explorers who figured that the tribal darkies they "discovered" could only make meaningless babbling sounds.

Synthesis. Word games.

A foreign language is not buzzwords. It is simply a foreign language.
It is possible to learn a foreign language. I have, for example, learned Japanese and some German.

Im a BM wrote:
Like Into the Night, the Great Men of Europe declared those gibber babble sounds to be meaningless "buzzwords".

Lie. Synthesis. Geography problem. Neither the United States nor the thirteen colonies were in Europe.
Quite a few colonists learned a bit of the local language, and others learned more it it. Trade with the local population was generally beneficial for both.

Im a BM wrote:
Try to convince THOSE ignorant types that these creatures are capable of "abstract reasoning".

The American Indian was not ignorant. Each tribe or confederation of tribes had a complex culture, and their own way of surviving and building home comforts for themselves. They each had a religion as well. Indeed, the American indians taught the colonists much that became critical to their survival.

Im a BM wrote:
What we need to do is have our computer program have a capacity for MUTATION of some kind.

AI is already here.

Im a BM wrote:
Random luck changes to part of the program that might make it more "fit" for competition with other computers.

Everyone that builds a computer is in competition with everyone else building computers.

Im a BM wrote:
Most of them would make no difference with enough redundancy in the basic program. Those that are not innocuous are likely to be detrimental. Tough luck, computer simulation! And a lucky few will be endowed with a new advantage over the other computer programs.

A person that write a program is in competition with all other programmers writing that same type of program.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps we could require some of our programs to acquire needed resources by attacking other programs.

That is against federal and probably state laws.

Into the Night wrote:
A computer is not a brain.

Im a BM wrote:

Personally, I believe that horses DO have abstract reasoning capacity.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Personally, I believe that horses DO have abstract reasoning capacity.

Yeah, when a horse gets spooked, I believe it is showing abstract mental acuity.

Still not sure it has much reasoning ability, but it is not void of abstract awareness IMO.

Im a BM wrote:
The tour guide kept giving separate tour talking points to my male friend and I, and dumbed down the exact same point to repeat it to the woman. He seemed to be unaware that females are as capable of abstract reasoning as males. He seemed to think she would only understand if he simplified it and spoke to her as if she were a child.

Im a BM wrote:
I assume that you know you can bump up ANY of your best, most informative threads back to the home page to stimulate discussion.

Im a BM wrote:
Your trolling does not have to be confined to the threads that others are attempting to discuss.

Im a BM wrote:
You don't have to tolerate all this off topic discussion cluttering up the home page. Bring back some of YOUR best threads.

Im a BM wrote:
The message is timeless, and just as relevant today as when you started them. People will want to jump in and join the discussion because your commentary is so thought provoking. People will want to forward links to their friends and colleagues.

Im a BM wrote:
I know you are a "computer engineer", but where God NEEDS you to act is around debunking "thermodynamics" falsely applied to suggest that climate change is even theoretically possible. You have SO MUCH to teach. You are one of the very few scientists on Earth who knows why "Climate cannot change".

Im a BM wrote:

I think humans have such a poor history of recognizing that capacity for abstract reasoning in other human beings, we are handicapped in our ability to see it in other species.