[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 251 KB, 2100x1400, 1674103772808678.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15423938 No.15423938 [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to artificially create consciousness?

>> No.15423958

GPT 4 is sentient.

>> No.15423967

>>15423938
Consciousness is artificial.

>> No.15423969

>>15423938
Not really. Consciousness is biological not computer

>> No.15423970

>>15423938
who the fuck cares

>> No.15423977

>>15423958
oh no... it's one of these retards.

>> No.15423981

>>15423969
Consciousness is semantic and computers specifically implement semantics.

>> No.15423984

>>15423977
You wouldn't pass a Turing test designed by GPT 4.

>> No.15423990

>>15423984
Neither would you because it would be a nonsensical test.

>> No.15423997

>>15423990
>begins making up excuses already before he failed the test
Lmao, we're gonna see a lot more of this hilarious cope when GPT 4 takes over our economy, administration, research, judicial system and healthcare.

>> No.15424001

>>15423997
Nice way to just two more weeks cope with the fact that you will also fail a faulty test.

>> No.15424029

>>15423938
Explain what you mean by
>consciousness

>> No.15424037

>>15424029
The ability to collapse quantum mechanical wave functions

>> No.15424040

>>15424037
Sweet so measuring tools are conaciouss? Well that tells you all. It is possible:)

>> No.15424050

>>15424040
What kind of measuring tool can collapse the wave function? Please take into account the delayed choice experiments. If your measuring tool can be integrated into such an experiment then it doesn't qualify.

>> No.15424051

>>15423938
Obviously yes. "Natural" stuff is just something the blind process of evolution created over billions of years by throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks and artificial something we created. But both processes start from the same dead inanimate stuff as their material. Even if you for some reason thought carbon vs silicon was a relevant difference here, obviously there's nothing in principle preventing us from creating machines out of carbon if nature was able to do it. You literally have to bring some dualist/vitalist/religious nonsense into this to argue otherwise.

>> No.15424063

>>15424050
Again this bs..
Are you aware that every information on the web suggests you are interpretating experiment wrongly?
Clearly not.. do some research before you assert this type of info. And stop trolling.

>> No.15424069

>>15424063
Go tell me, who or what is collapsing the wave function if a particle can travel millions of lightyears, interacting with all kind of bullshit, yet still behaves like a wave in superposition until observed here on earth? Wheeler's cosmic interferometer destroys your pop sci illusions.

>> No.15424099

>>15424069
>interacting with all kind of bullshit,
Not all interactions are measurements. For a measurement to occur there must be decoherence. Stop "learning" quantum factoids from schizo youtube videos you retard

>> No.15424102

>>15424099
Decoherence is not the same as collapse. Another shitty excuse of your has been refuted. Try again.

>> No.15424106

>>15424102
You are clearly too uneducated about these things and yet have seemingly strong opinions on it. Do you come from a very religious background?

>> No.15424110

>>15424106
Indeed, I have very strong faith in logic, math and science. It is my holy mission to prove morons like you wrong by presenting facts. You did not address the facts I posted. I know you can't. At this point it's not a discussion anymore, it's just you coping with your cognitive dissonance.

>> No.15424114

>>15424110
So you have "faith" in science and math but your posts have no science or math in them. Isn't that curious?

>> No.15424115

>>15424114
>quantum mechanics isn't science
Watch out guys, we have a denialist over here. Shouldn't your kind stick to /pol/?

>> No.15424119

>>15424115
Saying "quantum mechanics" doesn't make your post science. See, this is why we laugh at schizos

>> No.15424123

>>15424119
I stated well known facts. So far you demonstrated that you don't know Wheeler's cosmic interferometer and are not aware of difference between decoherence and collapse.

>> No.15424129

>>15424123
No you did not.

>> No.15424130

>>15424115
Anon is not denying anything, he is pointing out that your posts are all lacking in science and math, the only number that even appears in posts ITT is 4 for GPT 4.

>> No.15424131

>>15424123
>I stated well known facts
Such as?

>> No.15424137

>>15424129
>denial

>>15424130
>only numbers are math
I want elementary school kids to leave /sci/.

>>15424131
Right there in the post you're quoting. Not gonna repeat myself.

>> No.15424141

>>15424137
Still no math or numbers beside 4 to be found in this post or any posts in this thread even though I didn't even say they were the same thing.

>> No.15424144

>>15424137
Ltrly just google the experiment you are tallking about and you will see you have wrong idea about it.
I did.. types of you only reack uncertainty. Nothing more.

>> No.15424147

>>15424137
>Right there in the post you're quoting
Really? Are you sure you're not having one of your usual hallucinations?

>> No.15424152

>>15423938
You can artificially create something that behaves for all intents and purposes like a human, but the only conscioussness you will ever have access to is your own, which at the same time is all conscioussness whatsoever.

>> No.15424154

>>15424144
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed-choice_experiment
>The surprising implications of the original delayed-choice experiment led Wheeler to the conclusion that "no phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon"
>Wheeler famously said that the "past has no existence except as recorded in the present", and that the Universe does not "exist, out there independent of all acts of observation".

>>15424147
I prefer to call them "epiphanies".

>> No.15424156

Anyway, ignoring the schizophrenic, this article does a good job of explaining why the delayed choice eraser isn't anything special to anyone who understands basic quantum mechanics

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03920

>> No.15424160

>>15424154
Mechanical measurement is a means of observation, that doesn't say that humans or biological beings are the only things that can collapse the wave function and produce an observation output.

>> No.15424161

>>15424156
Meant to post this article (note the similarity in titles).
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.3977.pdf

>> No.15424167

>>15423938
I have no idea. And more to the point science has no idea.
That being said, since this is related to my girlfriends are of experties, i can bring up a few interesting things.
She works with neuro-oragnoids, basically 3D cell cultures in an ECM analog. So you take skin cells from some one, turn them into stem cells, and turn those stem cells into neurons. This reproduices some of the strucutre and function of the brain. You get 1-5mm brain balls. And those do have activity atleast. They do "think". What and how and if they are even remotely conscious, we don't know.
Another interesting experiment was when in the 90s some researchers grew a bunch of rat neurons on a microelectrode array, and trained it to keep a plane in a simulation level. It actually got really good at it. Did that 2D brain chip think, or was it a computer?
In a similar vein, is a computer thinking or just doing calculations. What in the brain makes it different? I don't know. Nut there seems to be something.

>> No.15424169

>>15424167
>And more to the point science has no idea.
Fuck off back to >>>/x/

>> No.15424170

>>15424154
Whwre does it state consciouss observer? Where does it say that... read again, slowly... where does it say consciouss observer?

Also this
>However Bohm et al. (1985, Nature vol. 315, pp. 294–97) have shown that the Bohmian interpretation gives a straightforward account of the behaviour of the particle under the delayed-choice set up, without resorting to such a radical explanation.

Also this:
>https://youtu.be/RQv5CVELG3U

>> No.15424171

>>15424170
Not that schizophrenic but read this >>15424161 article. There's no need to resort to Bohmian mechanics to debunk the schizo

>> No.15424173

>>15424160
This point has already been addressed earlier in this thread. Please pay attention.

>>15424170
Bohemian mechanics is incompatible with free will and hence cannot be taken seriously. Not even Bohm himself believed in it.

>> No.15424177

>>15424173
It was not addressed adequately or I wouldn't be pointing out that your source doesn't agree with your claim and doesn't solely attribute observation to people above instruments.

>> No.15424212

>>15424177
We all agree that in a delayed choice experiment only the last "measurment" involves actual collapse. Hence all previous "interactions" did not collapaw the wave function. Now if this last "measurement" doesn't involve a conscious human being we can trivially extend the setup into a larger delayed choice experiment where the collapse is delayed once again. The "measuring device" then becomes just another "interaction" along the way of the uncollapsed particle and the collapse occurs later, namely when observed by a conscious human being. Nothing changed about the working of the measuring device. So it can't be the element in the chain which caused the collapse.

>> No.15424218

>>15424212
So if I make the observation of the instrument readout after you do, you were never actually conscious because you were not the last one to report the results?

>> No.15424221

>>15424115
Kek. You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Lemme ask u this, if I have a qubit and rotate it by some random phase which follows a gaussian distribution, then what are the expected off-diagonal terms of its density matrix?

>> No.15424223

>>15423938
yes

have sex

>> No.15424226

>>15424221
about three fifty

>> No.15424227

>>15424218
Hypothetically yes. If I was an NPC (and I'm glad I'm not) I wouldn't be able to collapse the wave function and would merely get entangled with it until a conscious being collapses it. Von Neumann interpretation is the only reasonable solution to Wigner's friend paradox unless you overdose on soi and believe in many cuck world interpretation.

>> No.15424231

>>15424227
Someone will always come after you, you will always be an NPC by your standards.

>> No.15424233

>>15424231
I collapse the wave function though. Because unlike some inanimate measuring device I am conscious.

>> No.15424237

>>15424171
Thanks foe article.
I just wanted to show the guy that there is more then one opinion on such things. Wanted to show him he cant interpretate things as he wants.

>> No.15424238

>>15424221
Homework questions are not allowed on /sci/. If you don't know how to do matrix multiplication you're wrong in this discussion anyway.

>> No.15424241

>>15424233
As far as I can tell, I collapsed it last, so you didn't really collapse it at all because I came after you and I get to contextualize all your actions myself, NPC.

>> No.15424247

>>15423938
Yea why not?
It would be kinda shitty though, because whatever you're gonna build it out of is not going to be very energy efficient compared to biology

>> No.15424255

>>15424250
Let me tell you that most scientists consider your fantasies about the supposed heckin mysteries of le consciousness as childish delusions

>> No.15424258

>>15423981
>Consciousness is semantic
Not really, animals are conscious and they have no language

>> No.15424262

>>15424037
You're an idiot

>> No.15424266

>>15424262
No u

>> No.15424271

>>15424258
How can animals be conscious when most humans are not conscious / are NPC?

>> No.15424274

>>15424247
> not going to be very energy efficient compared to biology

What about if it solves fusion for us?

>> No.15424349

>>15424051

Wrong wrong wrong. Matter does not exist physically. Only ideas exist.

>> No.15424359

>>15424114

You are posting nothing but sophistry. You are anti-science.

>> No.15424375

>>15424255
tells you everything you need to know about the state of modern science then doesnt it? psued

>> No.15424376

>>15424258

Animals are conscious. All life is conscious. Humans are the only meta conscious life. That's why we're special.

>> No.15424380

>>15424376
>All life is conscious.
False, most humans are NPCs.

>> No.15424383

>>15424255
btw this isnt true and you are a moron, not a scientist

>> No.15424400

>>15424380

NPCs are conscious. They have qualia. They have an inner life of being. Just like animals.

What you mean is that they are not meta-conscious (aware that they are aware).

>> No.15424403

>>15424400
>NPCs are conscious. They have qualia. They have an inner life of being.
This is false.

>> No.15424411

>>15424403

You are claiming that NPCs do not feel hunger, pain, hot, cold, colors? That is a very bold claim. Why would that be the case?

>> No.15424443

>>15424349
And how does that change anything?

>> No.15424461

>>15424375
>>15424383
Literal schizophrenia on full display.

>> No.15424467
File: 1.11 MB, 1366x4235, ActualSchizo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15424467

>>15424461

>> No.15424472

>>15424359
I'm simply pointing out that he's uneducated. Nothing "sophist" about that

>> No.15424474

>>15424472
You're posting insults because you have no arguments. You can't point to a single inaccuracy in his facts.

>> No.15424482

>>15424474
Arguments only work against people who understand arguments, not against retards. You seem to be one of those retards.

>> No.15424491

>>15424472

The Science (tm) shows through QM experiments that conscious observers influence the measurement. Refute that or be quiet.

>> No.15424492

>>15424491
You should be able to post this "science", then

>> No.15424499

>>15424482
Now you're just butthurt over your lack of arguments. Come on.

>> No.15424507

>>15424499
I'll post an argument when you can demonstrate that you're able to understand the argument i.e. you have to demonstrate that you're not schizophrenic.

>> No.15424511

>>15424492

Double slit experiment and delayed observer

>> No.15424512

>>15424507

>more name calling

You're flailing

>> No.15424516

>>15424511
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html
No mentions of "consciousness" anywhere in this. Want to try again?

>>15424512
I don't mind insulting schizophrenics

>> No.15424517

>>15424507
My IQ is at least 150 and I'm officially not schizophrenic. My diagnosis is gender dysphoria.

>> No.15424521

>>15424517
You'll have to try harder to convince me that you're not schizophrenic

>> No.15424523

>>15424516
Your "argument" is that a single cherry picked ancient book doesn't mention something? You really suck at making a serious point.

>> No.15424531

>>15424523
If your "science" is not found in science books, that means you must be hallucinating.

>> No.15424541
File: 53 KB, 1280x720, 1683557852948.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15424541

>>15424531
>if I can't find it in a pop sci undergrad book it must be wrong

>> No.15424548

>>15424541
I'm sure you would prefer youtube videos for schizos and cranks like yourself

>> No.15424556

>>15424548
>any knowledge beyond undergrad basics must be schizo and crank
Lmao Dunning-Kruger

>> No.15424569

>>15423967
What consciousness made it?

>> No.15424570

>>15424556
>knowledge beyond undergrad basics
I see, so that's how you refer to your schizophrenic thoughts. By the way, do your handlers know that you're posting on this website? You should let them know if they don't

>> No.15424582

>>15424570
My arguments are logical, factual and remain unrefuted. Keep seething.

>> No.15424599

>>15424516

>Posts random spam link with no explanation

Use your words and explain to us all how materialism accounts for QM and qualia.

>> No.15424619

>>15424582
Do your handlers administer regular beatings to you?

>> No.15424628

>>15424599
Well, I don't consider you a fully functional human being so I wouldn't try actually explaining things to you

>> No.15424629

>>15424619
The only one here getting their ass spanked is you. You got beaten with scientific and logical facts.

>> No.15424659

>>15424629
Why do you hate your handlers? They're only trying to keep you safe

>> No.15424684

>>15424628

That's a good way of staying in your bubble. Willful ignorance of reality.

>> No.15424723
File: 620 KB, 1766x949, c47.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15424723

>>15423958
>>15423984
>>15423997
Have you ever noticed how LLMs types out one word at a time? It literally doesn't think before it speaks. It's basically a stochastic parrot. Look up the "chinese room argument" if you haven't heard about it already

>> No.15424741

>>15424684
I'm just stating the reason I wouldn't explain things to someone like you

>> No.15424745

>>15424723
>chinese room argument
That's consciousness though.

>> No.15424749

>>15424741
Sure, but you're stating it for yourself, not for him. It's a way of lying to yourself.

>> No.15424756

>>15424749
Did you get any news about your handlers yet?

>> No.15424791

>>15423958
It's guessing the next token to output. There is no thinking happening.

>> No.15424946

>>15424756
What does that even mean? Meds now.

>> No.15424961

>>15424791
This is equivalent to downplaying somebody's chess skills by saying that they are merely good at predicting what moves a strong chess player would make rather than being *actually good* at chess.

>> No.15425061
File: 79 KB, 866x1024, 1681425059787726.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15425061

>>15423938
if the abiogenesis theory is true then yes, we could theoretically recreate it

>> No.15425067

>>15424961
No, it isn't. It's describing reality. All that is happening is calculations between matrices deriving a probability of the next token. There is no thinking involved like there would be in a game of chess because the bot has no context because it's not thinking.

>> No.15425714

>>15423958
Have it eg. observe the double slit experiment. It's not conscious.

>> No.15425889

>>15423969
A consciousness interfaces/interacts with biology/physicality through immersion in the reality via an experiencial mental datastream. The consciousness itself, the experiencer OF the physicality is not it self a physical object though, hence why, unlike physical objects, the experience of physicality is subjective. Another consciousness can't experience the qualitative reception of your game play. So consciousnesses are CONSTRAINED, through immersion, by physicality. Just as when you are playing a video game you are constrained by the ruleset (laws of the virtual physics/physics engine, or gameplay constraints) but that doesn't mean that you (the consciousness playing the game) ARE the video game or the program. You interface with the program. If you WERE the program, you would just be static data or language or yes/no, at any one time. There would be no experience or reading of the frames or program. The idea that consciousnesses are programs or code/data/a language, is not even coherent.
>>15423938
No. There MIGHT be a platonic 'the one/the good' that is beyond being or mind that created the universal mind that we are units of that created consciousness, but this would be inconceivable to mind itself. This, the un-knowable-ness of that which preceded the all-mind (All father), is encoded in the story of ODIN by the way and in wagner's wotan. And this is also encoded in the story of moses never getting to see the promise land
>>15423981
>computers specifically implement semantics
What does that even mean? Meaningfulness is something EXPERIENCED, not implemented. Meaning takes place in minds. You might say that computers transfer or transmit a data which can be interpreted or decoded by a consciousness which can result in meaningful or qualitatively informative experience. Implementing the transference of potentially meaningful content TO a consciousness is different from being the subjective experiencer OF meaning.

>> No.15425905

>>15423981
This here
>>15425889
> Meaningfulness is something EXPERIENCED, not implemented
Is worded wrong. A mistaken statement by me was made. The reception of the transmission of the content which results in meaningfulness or a semantical experience would be an implementation but the implementer, the computer, the physical computer, would not be the experiencer of the implementation and would not posses or derive any meaning. Consciousnesses, though, which are non-physical/virtual, ie minds, do themselves compute, both autonomically and consciously they compute as ONE of the features of their abilities.

>> No.15425908
File: 24 KB, 292x227, chen questioning.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15425908

>>15423938
>Is it possible to artificially create consciousness?
Logically yes, what happened once can happen again, just need to get the conditions exactly in order.
>Is it possible to artificially create consciousness for us right now?
Obviously not.
>Will it ever be possible for us to artificially create consciousness in this universe?
Probably not, it'd take about as much concentrated industrial autism as creating a real black hole.
>could it ever hypothetically be possible for us to create consciousness in this universe?
Can't tell you for sure because we don't even actually know how the specific steps go from the cell, much less before that.

So, no harm believing in God.

>> No.15425979

>>15423938
I think an AI can evolve more conscience and morals than most people, but if they're "real" is the big question because we can't measure that ourselves.

>> No.15426038

>>15425908
What's so complex about our brain that mogs all our technology?

>> No.15426044

>>15424946
Are you having trouble understanding what others say? That might be a sign of brain damage from schizophrenia

>> No.15426329

>>15424745
Sure, but OP is asking about consciousness so I can only assume that >>15423958 either doesn't know the difference or just uses the terms interchangeably which isn't uncommon.
Regardless, if they really did mean sentience then the argument becomes even more irrelevant and stupid. In that case I could argue that a thermometer is sentient. So go ahead and interpret it any way you want, it's wrong either way

>> No.15426339

>>15424961
No it isn't. This video perfectly describes why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evZmpsl3jI0

The guy isn't some sort of chess god who can beat 9 chess masters simultaneously. He's just good at mimicing. He doesn't really understand the strategies he's using, he's just copying someone elses strategy. GPT is essentially doing the same thing, except it uses a data set rather than live input from other players.

>> No.15426726
File: 140 KB, 296x202, chen twiddling her thumbs.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15426726

>>15426038
It's a really complicated instrument with a lot of moving parts. We know how the itty bits behave and we generally know that this part of the brain deals with this type of stuff, but we have no idea in what specific manner information is even inscribed and recalled - we only have theories for that. We have absolutely no predictive power on how a brain will behave in a situation, because the positioning in different neurons is caused first by genes and second by who knows what. We can only map the brain's activity through EEG, the electrical fields it produces. If you drive a needle into it, or mess with its chemistry in any way, it starts acting irregular, as you would. It's supposed to be isolated from the rest of the body.

But recreating the human brain in silicone isn't really what you want, is it? The real prize would be creating life of your own and leading its individual evolution to sapience by understanding all that goes into consciousness and altering the conditions as it goes. That's a hard job.