killyaselfie:


So the gist of it is that there is an infinitely small probability that another PastorAIO exists somewhere in the universe.

.. somewhere in the multiverse

And an infinite number of others.

PastorAIO:


.. somewhere in the multiverse

And an infinite number of others.

The tricky bit with that theory though rests in the perception of self. The self-awareness, or self-consciousness. Because even if we presuppose for the sake of anything that there are indeed multiple other versions of (the frankly inimitable) Pastor AIO out there, would those versions be you: do they share your consciousness of being.

Therein lies the trouble. Nevertheless let me just quickly add that speaking for myself one is sometimes so beset with such other-worldly dreams that one cannot help but countenance the possibility that one has an unconscious or subconscious simultaneous existence some place else.

DeepSight:


Oh what a bore.

LoL!

DeepSight:


The tricky bit with that theory though rests in the perception of self. The self-awareness, or self-consciousness. Because even if we presuppose for the sake of anything that there are indeed multiple other versions of (the frankly inimitable) Pastor AIO out there, would those versions be you: do they share your consciousness of being.

Therein lies the trouble. Nevertheless let me just quickly add that speaking for myself one is sometimes so beset with such other-worldly dreams that one cannot help but countenance the possibility that one has an unconscious or subconscious simultaneous existence some place else.

� what is the self?

To what extent is the self a construct built from a set of memories.

Imagine you fell in water as a child and nearly drowned and subsequently became very afraid of water. In fact the fear pervaded your life to the extent that it became a signature characteristic of Deepsight. Everyone that knows you knows that ‘that guy dey fear water sha’.

No w imagine you had an accident that resulted in you losing a large chunk of your memory including the early event where you nearly drowned. That event is no longer a part of your episodic memory, and subsequently you lose that characteristic fear of water. Are you still that previous hydrophobic guy?

PastorAIO:


� what is the self?

To what extent is the self a construct built from a set of memories.

Imagine you fell in water as a child and nearly drowned and subsequently became very afraid of water. In fact the fear pervaded your life to the extent that it became a signature characteristic of Deepsight. Everyone that knows you knows that ‘that guy dey fear water sha’.

No w imagine you had an accident that resulted in you losing a large chunk of your memory including the early event where you nearly drowned. That event is no longer a part of your episodic memory, and subsequently you lose that characteristic fear of water. Are you still that previous hydrophobic guy?

So there is this constant evolution we go through, undergirded by past and succeeding memories which defines the totality of the mental being that we are, forming a composite but transient sense of self at any point in time. That is well understood and I even recall a comment you made several years ago about not being sure you are the same person as you were twenty four hours ago or something to that effect. My take is that all of this is still the mental evolution of a single being whose root-consciousness or spirit, remains the same.

PastorAIO:


� what is the self?

Let me just add with respect to this here: this is probably the most profound question a human being will have to deal with in his or her evolution. It is a question every bit as mystical and perplexing as the nature of reality itself, the nature of time, the source of life and the cause of the universe. I often find myself wondering if those people who call themselves materialists have taken time to stare deeply at their own reflection in a mirror and truly absorb themselves in it: because what must emerge is nothing short of a puzzling hall of mirrors which, if nothing else, removes every scintilla of doubt that the being that you are is not the encasement you stare at.

Apologies in advance to LordReed, who I must carefully note, does not say this.

There is a Zen story about a monk who goes to his master and says: ‘ master please pacify my mind’

The master answered: ‘ show me your mind and I will pacify it’

He replied: ‘ sir I have sought it but I cannot find my mind’

Master: ‘ there you go, I’ve pacified your mind for you’

DeepSight:


So there is this constant evolution we go through, undergirded by past and succeeding memories which defines the totality of the mental being that we are, forming a composite but transient sense of self at any point in time. That is well understood and I even recall a comment you made several years ago about not being sure you are the same person as you were twenty four hours ago or something to that effect. My take is that all of this is still the mental evolution of a single being whose root-consciousness or spirit, remains the same.

PastorAIO:


There is a Zen story about a monk who goes to his master and says: ‘ master please pacify my mind’

The master answered: ‘ show me your mind and I will pacify it’

He replied: ‘ sir I have sought it but I cannot find my mind’

Master: ‘ there you go, I’ve pacified your mind for you’

DeepSight:


Let me just add with respect to this here: this is probably the most profound question a human being will have to deal with in his or her evolution. It is a question every bit as mystical and perplexing as the nature of reality itself, the nature of time, the source of life and the cause of the universe. I often find myself wondering if those people who call themselves materialists have taken time to stare deeply at their own reflection in a mirror and truly absorb themselves in it: because what must emerge is nothing short of a puzzling hall of mirrors which, if nothing else, removes every scintilla of doubt that the being that you are is not the encasement you stare at.

Apologies in advance to LordReed, who I must carefully note, does not say this.

I consider myself a materialist, and I would say that the reverse applies to me: It was in my deep musings and long periods of inner exploration that I came to the conclusions that I hold now.
Of the more conspicuous issues inherent to a non-materialistic perspective is it's dependence on the existence of something which, by its very nature, is immune to inspection (for if it were not, the question of the self would be trivial, wouldn't it?). It's a tempting angle to look at things from, but is too convenient an answer to such a difficult question - too convenient for myself, anyhow.

The self, as it appears to me, is an algorithm build to repair the gaps formed by our memories and our capacity for inner examination. It's most critical function then is to create a consistent "being" - comprised of our thoughts, feelings, actions, reactions and relationships. Functionally this makes sense: most mental operations executed by the brain are sequential, and the output generated by them depends heavily on the output generated at a previous iteration. Our reactions to experiences depend heavily on our previous reactions to similar experiences, and our personalities are constructed by our experiences and our reactions to said experiences, which are also strongly correlated to our personalities at the time. For a self-feeding algorithm such as this to function properly, we must consistently perceive ourselves in one single stream of consciousness, so as to avoid mental confusion.

I am often baffled by the perspectives of those who prescribe to a dualistic outlook of the self. Given the numerous cases of the physical configuration of the brain having direct, predictable effects on one's perception of the self, one would think that the dualistic perspective would have been largely abandoned by now.

diridiri:


I consider myself a materialist, and I would say that the reverse applies to me: It was in my deep musings and long periods of inner exploration that I came to the conclusions that I hold now.
Of the more conspicuous issues inherent to a non-materialistic perspective is it's dependence on the existence of something which, by its very nature, is immune to inspection (for if it were not, the question of the self would be trivial, wouldn't it?). It's a tempting angle to look at things from, but is too convenient an answer to such a difficult question - too convenient for myself, anyhow.

The self, as it appears to me, is an algorithm build to repair the gaps formed by our memories and our capacity for inner examination. It's most critical function then is to create a consistent "being" - comprised of our thoughts, feelings, actions, reactions and relationships. Functionally this makes sense: most mental operations executed by the brain are sequential, and the output generated by them depends heavily on the output generated at a previous iteration. Our reactions to experiences depend heavily on our previous reactions to similar experiences, and our personalities are constructed by our experiences and our reactions to said experiences, which are also strongly correlated to our personalities at the time. For a self-feeding algorithm such as this to function properly, we must consistently perceive ourselves in one single stream of consciousness, so as to avoid mental confusion.

This is very well written and also very appreciated. It is also pretty much the truth.
Well - save with respect to your "self of the gaps."

I am often baffled by the perspectives of those who prescribe to a dualistic outlook of the self.

Well let me just clarify here that what I advance is no dualism of the "self" but actually a singular immaterial self dwelling in a material encasement, which for all practical purposes has the nature of a biological machine or robot, complete with its very advanced computerized section, which you may call the brain.

Given the numerous cases of the physical configuration of the brain having direct, predictable effects on one's perception of the self, one would think that the dualistic perspective would have been largely abandoned by now.

It is only natural that the computer which handles your entire perception of the physical world will have a significant impact on your sense of self therein, and even your sense of reality thereof. Deeper reflection, nonetheless, leads me to believe that this computer is not you, but a tool for the you.

diridiri:


I consider myself a materialist, and I would say that the reverse applies to me: It was in my deep musings and long periods of inner exploration that I came to the conclusions that I hold now.
Of the more conspicuous issues inherent to a non-materialistic perspective is it's dependence on the existence of something which, by its very nature, is immune to inspection (for if it were not, the question of the self would be trivial, wouldn't it?). It's a tempting angle to look at things from, but is too convenient an answer to such a difficult question - too convenient for myself, anyhow.

The self, as it appears to me, is an algorithm build to repair the gaps formed by our memories and our capacity for inner examination. It's most critical function then is to create a consistent "being" - comprised of our thoughts, feelings, actions, reactions and relationships. Functionally this makes sense: most mental operations executed by the brain are sequential, and the output generated by them depends heavily on the output generated at a previous iteration. Our reactions to experiences depend heavily on our previous reactions to similar experiences, and our personalities are constructed by our experiences and our reactions to said experiences, which are also strongly correlated to our personalities at the time. For a self-feeding algorithm such as this to function properly, we must consistently perceive ourselves in one single stream of consciousness, so as to avoid mental confusion.

I am often baffled by the perspectives of those who prescribe to a dualistic outlook of the self. Given the numerous cases of the physical configuration of the brain having direct, predictable effects on one's perception of the self, one would think that the dualistic perspective would have been largely abandoned by now.

Gosh I wish I had the fluency to so eloquently state my positions. You sir/madam/(insert your preferred appellation) are awesome. Your words conjure in one post far more than I could muster in several.

Small question which leaps to mind, for LordReed and Gang (Diridiri, Tamaratonye1) -

What do you think accounts for the sometimes radically different personalities of siblings who may have grown up together and thus received virtually identical sets of experiences and "nurture."

To bring this question into greater lucidity, presuppose identical twins raised together and who, like my own younger brothers, do everything together from infancy up into their present forties.

DeepSight:

Well let me just clarify here that what I advance is no dualism of the "self" but actually a singular immaterial self dwelling in a material encasement, which for all practical purposes has the nature of a biological machine or robot, complete with its very advanced computerized section, which you may call the brain.

Although this is definitely a possible explanation as to the nature of the "self", it's also unnecessary, the way I see it. What function of the self requires an immaterial component to be executed? I don't think any such function exists, but I'm always welcome to the possibility that I have missed something.

Generally, if a detail in an explanation seems unnecessary or unjustified, I would consider the explanation incomplete regardless of whether the conclusion happens to be true or not.

The same objection relates to your final comment. If the tool can explain the entirety of the functionality of the system, then why does the system require that the tool have a user? In the case of a wheelbarrow, for instance, knowing that a wheelbarrow cannot move on its own is enough for one to conclude that a moving wheelbarrow must be being moved, either by a human being, a steep hill, or some other source of energy. But in the case of our machine, we already have an explanation for where the energy needed for the computer to run comes from. Is there something that hints at an immaterial user?

DeepSight:
Small question which leaps to mind, for LordReed and Gang (Diridiri, Tamaratonye1) -

What do you think accounts for the sometimes radically different personalities of siblings who may have grown up together and thus received virtually identical sets of experiences and "nurture."

To bring this question into greater lucidity, presuppose identical twins raised together and who, like my own younger brothers, do everything together from infancy up into their present forties.

Would I be correct in assuming that you are suggesting an inherent nature subject to, but not necessarily originating from one's experiences?

DeepSight:
Small question which leaps to mind, for LordReed and Gang (Diridiri, Tamaratonye1) -

What do you think accounts for the sometimes radically different personalities of siblings who may have grown up together and thus received virtually identical sets of experiences and "nurture."

To bring this question into greater lucidity, presuppose identical twins raised together and who, like my own younger brothers, do everything together from infancy up into their present forties.

Some things known and unknown. The unknown part is clearly something we can't talk about since we don't know it yet. The known ones would be such as the structure of the brain, foundational formation of the personality construct, variation in actual information received by the individuals, genetic predispositions with regards to proclivities and aversions, variation in endocrinology, etc. I don't think I can exhaustively list all the things that would make them turn out to be different individuals.

diridiri:


Would I be correct in assuming that you are suggesting an inherent nature subject to, but not necessarily originating from one's experiences?

Indeed I am suggesting just that because these radical differences could be observed even from their earliest infancy.
What do you think accounts for that.

LordReed:


Some things known and unknown. The unknown part is clearly something we can't talk about since we don't know it yet.

Well as you already know, I lean towards the idea that the "unknown" part is largely accounted for by an indwelling spirit.

The known ones would be such as the structure of the brain, foundational formation of the personality construct, variation in actual information received by the individuals, genetic predispositions with regards to proclivities and aversions, variation in endocrinology, etc. I don't think I can exhaustively list all the things that would make them turn out to be different individuals.

As to the genetic part of this, note my choice of identical twins as an example - and further note that I said "radical" differences in personalities. Using my brothers as an example, the variation in actual information received will be too minor to account for radical differences, especially since such differences were observed even before they could speak.

diridiri:

What function of the self requires an immaterial component to be executed? . . . Is there something that hints at an immaterial user?

Experience and the capacity to experience is what hints at an inward dwelling user. Because as I have argued earlier on, a camera cannot "see" anything, it is merely a tool for capturing images. Same goes for the eyes. Even the optic nerves and optic lobe are only involved in interpreting visual signals. There is the obvious need for a being who is the recipient of that which is interpreted and delivered.

Everything about the physical system logically evinces this. All of your senses, from sound to sight, to taste to smell to touch - infer the same thing. Signals are being passed and interpreted but for what and to what, if not to an experiencing being. The entire construct would be meaningless without an experiencing being, and in truth this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence.

Only a being is capable of conscious experience - much less self-conscious experience and everything about the physical body patently suggests tools set up to deliver that experience to the actual being.

DeepSight:


Well as you already know, I lean towards the idea that the "unknown" part is largely accounted for by an indwelling spirit.



As to the genetic part of this, note my choice of identical twins as an example - and further note that I said "radical" differences in personalities. Using my brothers as an example, the variation in actual information received will be too minor to account for radical differences, especially since such differences were observed even before they could speak.

Identical twins can have widely varying proclivities and aversions, that they are identical doesn't mean they DNA is exactly the same. Taken individual none of the factors will alone be responsible for the wide variance, it is the combination of all these factors that leads to the wide variance.

DeepSight:


Indeed I am suggesting just that because these radical differences could be observed even from their earliest infancy.
What do you think accounts for that.

I'll answer your question with another question. Where do mental disorders and disabilities come from? Were people that were born sociopaths just born with a malicious "immaterial component"? Even though there are accepted correlations between the mapping of the brain and the way these disorders manifest?
Furthermore, what is responsible for physical radical differences between children? They come from the same parents.

Reproduction does not produce perfect copies - if it did phenomena like natural selection would not work and epidemics would have wiped out the human race already. Whether physical or mental, differences exist. However, as I stated in my first comment, this personality can still be manipulated by personal experiences and one's perception of these personal experiences such that, even though two people might have been born with a basically identical mental framework, that framework is altered in such a way that their personalities differ radically after a decade.

On the examples of your twin brothers, giving the meticulous planning that would be required to make their experiences completely identical, I doubt that they had experienced the same things, thought the same thoughts, felt the same emotions, and gained interests in the same things consistently for the entirety of their lives. Given the self-feeding nature of the human personality, even one slight different in an experience might compound.

And even though they were just different from the day they were born, I don't see how this hints at the existence of an immaterial self causing this to be so.

diridiri:


I'll answer your question with another question. Where do mental disorders and disabilities come from? Were people that were born sociopaths just born with a malicious "immaterial component"? Even though there are accepted correlations between the mapping of the brain and the way these disorders manifest?
Furthermore, what is responsible for physical radical differences between children? They come from the same parents.

Reproduction does not produce perfect copies - if it did phenomena like natural selection would not work and epidemics would have wiped out the human race already. Whether physical or mental, differences exist. However, as I stated in my first comment, this personality can still be manipulated by personal experiences and one's perception of these personal experiences such that, even though two people might have been born with a basically identical mental framework, that framework is altered in such a way that their personalities differ radically after a decade.

On the examples of your twin brothers, giving the meticulous planning that would be required to make their experiences completely identical, I doubt that they had experienced the same things, thought the same thoughts, felt the same emotions, and gained interests in the same things consistently for the entirety of their lives. Given the self-feeding nature of the human personality, even one slight different in an experience might compound.

All this being correct, was unnecessary for you to explain: I know and agree, but thanks for taking the time - I like meticulous discussants.

And even though they were just different from the day they were born, I don't see how this hints at the existence of an immaterial self causing this to be so.

Patience friend, it is just one step on a ladder I am putting up. You see, the point here is that they had not even started to experience the world, and there was no "nurture" to speak of by the time differences could be discerned. Such as one being eminently more expressive and aggressive than the other.

Now add this to the nature of Identical Twins. I chose them for a reason - "Identical, or monozygotic, twins occur when a single egg, fertilised by a single sperm, divides and makes two babies." So you see, its tricky to even resort to genetics to explain any radical difference here.

So taking away both physical "nature" (genetics) and "nurture" (experiences) what could account for such radical differences.
You know my answer already - whats yours?

LordReed:


Identical twins can have widely varying proclivities and aversions, that they are identical doesn't mean they DNA is exactly the same. Taken individual none of the factors will alone be responsible for the wide variance, it is the combination of all these factors that leads to the wide variance.

This is a bookish answer which borders on the deliberately generalistic in order to avoid a very specific point. With identical twins, you have a monozygotic situation where a single sperm fertilizes a single egg which then splits to form two babies. It will be painfully hard to argue that DNA accounts for radical personality differences in these kinds of babies, dont you think? Even if one agrees that they may imbibe different aspects of the same DNA - whatever that means - we surely must reasonably say that such will be way too infinitesimal to form solid basis for radical differences.

Agreed, they can have different DNA - due to cell splitting, but very marginally so. Using this as a basis for radical personality differences rests on shaky ground.

DeepSight:


This is a bookish answer which borders on the deliberately generalistic in order to avoid a very specific point. With identical twins, you have a monozygotic situation where a single sperm fertilizes a single egg which then splits to form two babies. It will be painfully hard to argue that DNA accounts for radical personality differences in these kind of babies, dont you think? Even if one agrees that they may imbibe different aspects of the same DNA - whatever that means - we surely must reasonably say that such will be way too infinitesimal to form solid basis for radical differences.

Agreed, they can have different DNA - due to cell splitting, but very marginally so. Using this as a basis for radical personality differences rests on shaky ground.

I mentioned several factors and you are latching on to 1 when I said it not a single factor but the combination. I dunno what you want me to say again.

LordReed:


I mentioned several factors and you are latching on to 1 when I said it not a single factor but the combination. I dunno what you want me to say again.

Fair enough, pardon me - I did feel though, that a number of the factors you mentioned traced back to genetics and also that at least one of the factors was cancelled out by what I said about differences being noted from infancy - virtually prior to any possible "experience" of the world or any kind of "nurture."

Overall - this is not a tangent I would like to dwell too much on, it was just a passing thought.

DeepSight:


Fair enough, pardon me - I did feel though, that a number of the factors you mentioned traced back to genetics and also that at least one of the factors was cancelled out by what I said about differences being noted from infancy - virtually prior to any possible "experience" of the world or any kind of "nurture."

Overall - this is not a tangent I would like to dwell too much on, it was just a passing thought.

What type of differences are you referring to?

DeepSight:


All this being correct, was unnecessary for you to explain: I know and agree, but thanks for taking the time - I like meticulous discussants.



Patience friend, it is just one step on a ladder I am putting up. You see, the point here is that they had not even started to experience the world, and there was no "nurture" to speak of by the time differences could be discerned. Such as one being eminently more expressive and aggressive than the other.

Now add this to the nature of Identical Twins. I chose them for a reason - "Identical, or monozygotic, twins occur when a single egg, fertilised by a single sperm, divides and makes two babies." So you see, its tricky to even resort to genetics to explain any radical difference here.

So taking away both physical "nature" (genetics) and "nurture" (experiences) what could account for such radical differences.
You know my answer already - whats yours?

That's quite a specific question.
Unfortunately, I'm not a behavioural geneticist or psychologist, so I can't answer this question satisfactorily.
However, as I have opined before, I am yet to be convinced that the lack of a definite answer is indicative of influence from the supernatural (a word that I have put a great deal of effort to avoid).

DeepSight:


Experience and the capacity to experience is what hints at an inward dwelling user. Because as I have argued earlier on, a camera cannot "see" anything, it is merely a tool for capturing images. Same goes for the eyes. Even the optic nerves and optic lobe are only involved in interpreting visual signals. There is the obvious need for a being who is the recipient of that which is interpreted and delivered.

Everything about the physical system logically evinces this. All of your senses, from sound to sight, to taste to smell to touch - infer the same thing. Signals are being passed and interpreted but for what and to what, if not to an experiencing being. The entire construct would be meaningless without an experiencing being, and in truth this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence.

Only a being is capable of conscious experience - much less self-conscious experience and everything about the physical body patently suggests tools set up to deliver that experience to the actual being.

In the first paragraph, you claim that there is a need for a being to receive that which is interpreted and delivered. I've already stated that this function is doable without the assistance of an other "being". I'm yet to receive a reason why an immaterial being is necessary for this function.

In the second paragraph, you make an astonishing claim: "...this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence". I assume you do not mean that we currently lack the technology required to accomplish such a feat, but that it is theoretically impossible. It's a baseless claim. I'm certain that, 5000 years ago, it would have been said that human beings were unable to penetrate the skies or alter the weather; all things we are very capable of today.

The third paragraph misunderstands my point. What I'm saying is that consciousness is not a metaphysical substance but an algorithm. It is a process, and a multifaceted one at that. Consciousness is a function of the being in question, much like walking, sleeping, or salivating are.

But that's not as important. Let's assume that you are right and said immaterial being exists. What makes it conscious, though? How does its own consciousness work? And, assuming you have a definite answer for that, why can't human brains use the same processes as well?

Moreover, can an immaterial substance that can interact with material substances be said to truly be immaterial? How does it even interact with the material shell?

diridiri:


In the second paragraph, you make an astonishing claim: "...this requires the sort of consciousness which we are not able to bequeath to even the most advanced artificial intelligence". I assume you do not mean that we currently lack the technology required to accomplish such a feat, but that it is theoretically impossible. It's a baseless claim. I'm certain that, 5000 years ago, it would have been said that human beings were unable to penetrate the skies or alter the weather; all things we are very capable of today.

I think its astonishing that you would think its astonishing if someone said its theoretically impossible to produce a machine with the attribute of consciousness as we understand it. Because this is a question that is truly alive in the sense that its is well debated even among scientists. This is way beyond the small matter of incredible scientific advancements which we would have thought impossible in ages gone by. This is something which goes to the root of theoretical possibility. It is as fundamental a question as probing if travel into the past is possible, or if teleportation is possible, or if observing what exists outside the universe is possible. It is not just a question of the ordinary advancement of science - it devolves upon certain inherent principles of reality and existentialism.

In this matter you should note that there is also the philosophical imponderable of proof of consciousness. Because you can invent a machine that so perfectly simulates consciousness that it is impossible to tell the difference between that machine and a conscious entity for all practical purposes. However you will never be able to conclusively know that that machine is conscious because consciousness by its very nature is a subjective experience. Indeed I would be surprised if you do not know that it is said that no one can even be sure of the actual consciousness of the next human being - you can only experience your own consciousness. You cannot enter into another persons consciousness - you will live your entire life trapped within the walls of your own consciousness.

So if you understand that you cannot even prove the next human being to be a conscious being as opposed to a simulation, how do you go about proving that that advanced AI of one million years from now actually has self consciousness. It is for all purposes unknowable - and you can be sure that my position is that something such as a machine or a computer cannot have self consciousness - and no, this is not an astonishing or even fringe claim. It is well within the realm of modern thought that a machine may not ever be capable of self-consciousness - and at all events, it is certainly the case that even if it were, proving such may eternally be impossible.

But that's not as important. Let's assume that you are right and said immaterial being exists. What makes it conscious, though? How does its own consciousness work? And, assuming you have a definite answer for that, why can't human brains use the same processes as well?

I dont believe that self consciousness can be attributed to material things but let us defer this point for now.

Moreover, can an immaterial substance that can interact with material substances be said to truly be immaterial? How does it even interact with the material shell?

Now this is a very good question but I would suggest that being of a different nature does not rule out the possibility of interaction. To use a loose analogy matter exists in different states such as solid, liquid and gaseous. All of these states can still interact notwithstanding being of different consistencies. Indeed the consistencies even often overlap. Likewise you may say that reality consists of different consistences, spiritual (or intangible if you prefer that word), ethereal and material. These differing consistences not only interact but even overlap. Please this is only a very loose analogy to visualize the point. It is not intended as an exact representation of anything or as scientific fact.

DeepSight:


I think its astonishing that you would think its astonishing if someone said its theoretically impossible to produce a machine with the attribute of consciousness as we understand it. Because this is a question that is truly alive in the sense that its is well debated even among scientists. This is way beyond the small matter of incredible scientific advancements which we would have thought impossible in ages gone by. This is something which goes to the root of theoretical possibility. It is as fundamental a question as probing if travel into the past is possible, or if teleportation is possible, or if observing what exists outside the universe is possible. It is not just a question of the ordinary advancement of science - it devolves upon certain inherent principles of reality and existentialism.

I say it is astonishing because it is an unfounded claim. I could not understand someone saying it is theoretically impossible to produce a machine with the attribute of consciousness because the theory of consciousness is so little understood that I would have to wonder what exactly they meant by "theoretically". Saying something is "theoretically impossible" requires that a theory exists in light of which the thing in question might be impossible.

You say that it is as fundamental as the problem of time travel or teleportation or probing outside the universe. It isn't. Those three problems are very reasonably considered impossible. The topic of time travel is far beyond my depth as a non-physicist, the second is technically possible if you somehow copy every single molecule in a human being's body, and the third is also beyond my depth. What I am certain of, however, is that the supposed impossibility of three of those tasks rests on good justification. I don't think I have heard from you any solid reason why consciousness requires an immaterial component to function. You just asserted that it did without any real justification.

You say it devolves upon inherent principles of reality and existentialism. Which principles?

DeepSight:

In this matter you should note that there is also the philosophical imponderable of proof of consciousness. Because you can invent a machine that so perfectly simulates consciousness that it is impossible to tell the difference between that machine and a conscious entity for all practical purposes. However you will never be able to conclusively know that that machine is conscious because consciousness by its very nature is a subjective experience. Indeed I would be surprised if you do not know that it is said that no one can even be sure of the actual consciousness of the next human being - you can only experience your own consciousness. You cannot enter into another persons consciousness - you will live your entire life trapped within the walls of your own consciousness.

So if you understand that you cannot even prove the next human being to be a conscious being as opposed to a simulation, how do you go about proving that that advanced AI of one million years from now actually has self consciousness. It is for all purposes unknowable - and you can be sure that my position is that something such as a machine or a computer cannot have self consciousness - and no, this is not an astonishing or even fringe claim. It is well within the realm of modern thought that a machine may not ever be capable of self-consciousness - and at all events, it is certainly the case that even if it were, proving such may eternally be impossible.

I agree with the sentiment that it may be impossible to tell whether a human being has consciousness, because it is only something that one can presuppose another possesses. However, if there is no way for one to completely discern whether or whether not another has consciousness, then wouldn't creating a system similar enough to our brains work? Theoretically, if we built a machine with a brain that was an almost perfect digital mapping of a typical human brain, which then exhibited astoundingly human behaviour, expressed human emotions, and displayed human inclinations, would that not be sufficient? After all, we ourselves are not certain of the consciousness of others, so why should be expect to be 100% certain with the AI? A reasonable level of certainty should be enough.

DeepSight:


Now this is a very good question but I would suggest that being of a different nature does not rule out the possibility of interaction. To use a loose analogy matter exists in different states such as solid, liquid and gaseous. All of these states can still interact notwithstanding being of different consistencies. Indeed the consistencies even often overlap. Likewise you may say that reality consists of different consistences, spiritual (or intangible if you prefer that word), ethereal and material. These differing consistences not only interact but even overlap. Please this is only a very loose analogy to visualize the point. It is not intended as an exact representation of anything or as scientific fact.

I would opine that any substance, regardless of composition, that can interact with physical substances is indeed physical.
I am coming to regret even bringing up this point, because I have a deep confusion with the concept of "immaterial substances". How would one even describe one? How do they operate? Again, it seems like an overly convenient way to ignore any possible questions on the nature of the substance in question - after all, if it is immaterial, you wouldn't expect the person suggesting them to know the answer to that. You wouldn't take me seriously if, whenever I were asked how something worked, I simply told you that tiny invisible intangible birds were responsible, would you? It's too convenient.

Diridiri, let me ask you this. Do you think it is theoretically possible to create a machine that feels pain. I trust you to dwell carefully on this question. Try also not to be clouded by your default perspective thus far.

In this I would further ask you to answer the question with respect to -

1. Physical pain and
2. Emotional pain.

Thank you.

DeepSight:
LordReed. Just a passing thought I thought to drop. I have told you before about my thoughts about the root of reality being something I call an infinite field of potentialities. The mind is like a minuscule droptlet of that infinite field of potentialities. This is why a mind is a terrible thing to trifle with: because a mind can do almost anything.

The brain is only the physical tool for the expression and manifestation of the activity of the mind.

You wouldn't realise how close you've gotten to what many choose to call God.

The mind is not terrible, unless you fear the power it invests in you.

Eve used her mind, but they wrote it down as a serpent to deter you from its use so you'd be a slave like Adam.

DeepSight:


As Pastor AIO has rightly said, remember that this may be just one version of infinite possibilities.

In the real world, there are no infinite possibilities, but actual realities. You know there are certain things impossible to you at this very moment.

You can't for instance, join me for dinner in an hours time at a restaurant on Old Kent Road!

DeepSight:


I often find myself wondering if those people who call themselves materialists have taken time to stare deeply at their own reflection in a mirror and truly absorb themselves in it:......

You make out like most people even bother to find out what a materialist is before claiming they are one. And actually, it is those intending to insult that often call others materialists.

Look at it this way. Some call themselves Christians too but its obvious they'd gnash their teeth someday.