If your speculation is that consciousness is rooted in the hardware, then synthetic consciousness is an engineering problem, and humanity is very good at solving engineering problems. The fact is, the only thing scientists have found that is really different between the neurons in simple life forms such as jellyfish and us is the level of complexity, hence the speculation of consciousness being emergent behavior. Again, I don’t know, and I haven’t heard of scientists definitively knowing the source of consciousness, either, which is why I continue to maintain that we don’t know if we can create synthetic consciousness because it’s really hard to make something if you don’t know how it works. As far as our current crop of tech bros, they seem to be relying on the idea of emergent behavior, hence the need for ever-more-complex artificial intelligence. I think they’re behaving like cargo cults, building something that superficially resembles the thing they want and hoping it just starts to mystically work. Them being wrong, just like cargo cults and airplanes, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to create a synthetic consciousness.
If your speculation is that consciousness is rooted in the hardware,
That’s not my speculation at all. We are not hardware. Organisms do not function like machines.
I haven’t heard of scientists definitively knowing the source of consciousness,
We know the source of consciousness - it’s organic. It’s rooted in our physical existence as organisms. What scientists want to understand is the “how” part… and we’ll never understand it if we think of it as an engineering/design problem because evolutionary processes reqires neither engineering nor design. In fact, I’d argue that this level of complexity is impossible to achieve through engineering and/or design processes.
which is why I continue to maintain that we don’t know
You may continue not knowing if you wish… but it’s a very mundane non-mystery as far as I’m concerned.
I think they’re behaving like cargo cults, building something that superficially resembles the thing they want
You’re assuming that consciousness is what they want… I’d say that’s an assumption that is not based on the true interests the parasite class has. Their interests is in control - not creating consciousness.
Engineering is applied physics, and physics is how the universe works (limited by our understanding of it, of course). Organisms follow physics just as much as any engineered device or structure.
Who applies the gravity to that jellyfish? Same answer. Newton didn’t invent gravity, and it still exists even if you don’t understand. Gravity affects that jellyfish as much as it affects me. Newton gave me the formulas to describe it.
My disengagement on this discussion isn’t due to my lack of ideas or capability to explain them, but due to my lack of belief in your ability or desire to grasp them. This was implied in my previous comment, but even that level of subtlety appears to be beyond you.
If your speculation is that consciousness is rooted in the hardware, then synthetic consciousness is an engineering problem, and humanity is very good at solving engineering problems. The fact is, the only thing scientists have found that is really different between the neurons in simple life forms such as jellyfish and us is the level of complexity, hence the speculation of consciousness being emergent behavior. Again, I don’t know, and I haven’t heard of scientists definitively knowing the source of consciousness, either, which is why I continue to maintain that we don’t know if we can create synthetic consciousness because it’s really hard to make something if you don’t know how it works. As far as our current crop of tech bros, they seem to be relying on the idea of emergent behavior, hence the need for ever-more-complex artificial intelligence. I think they’re behaving like cargo cults, building something that superficially resembles the thing they want and hoping it just starts to mystically work. Them being wrong, just like cargo cults and airplanes, doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to create a synthetic consciousness.
That’s not my speculation at all. We are not hardware. Organisms do not function like machines.
We know the source of consciousness - it’s organic. It’s rooted in our physical existence as organisms. What scientists want to understand is the “how” part… and we’ll never understand it if we think of it as an engineering/design problem because evolutionary processes reqires neither engineering nor design. In fact, I’d argue that this level of complexity is impossible to achieve through engineering and/or design processes.
You may continue not knowing if you wish… but it’s a very mundane non-mystery as far as I’m concerned.
You’re assuming that consciousness is what they want… I’d say that’s an assumption that is not based on the true interests the parasite class has. Their interests is in control - not creating consciousness.
Engineering is applied physics, and physics is how the universe works (limited by our understanding of it, of course). Organisms follow physics just as much as any engineered device or structure.
So who applied the physics to create a living, pulsating jellyfish?
Who applies the gravity to that jellyfish? Same answer. Newton didn’t invent gravity, and it still exists even if you don’t understand. Gravity affects that jellyfish as much as it affects me. Newton gave me the formulas to describe it.
So gravity is an engineer?
I don’t know if this a comprehension issue or trolling, but either one is a problem for you to fix, not me. Good luck out there.
You hitting rock-bottom with your argument does not constitute a comprehension issue on my part.
My disengagement on this discussion isn’t due to my lack of ideas or capability to explain them, but due to my lack of belief in your ability or desire to grasp them. This was implied in my previous comment, but even that level of subtlety appears to be beyond you.