Ray Kurzweil - What Things are Conscious?

[@johngrear6506]

Consciousness is not understanding something, it's experiencing anything.

[@AmazingArends]

Compare the number of comments on this video to one that describes Searle's Chinese room argument. People love Searle's argument, because most people hate the the thought that computers might someday be conscious!

[@acerovalderas]

The volume is low. The topic extremely interesting as well as Kurzweil.

[@Ansatz66]

Computer consciousness ought to be even more certain than human consciousness. With humans we have to trust that they have inner lives and real feelings because we cannot experience their subjective experience, but computers can be studied far more closely. We ought to be able to witness a transcript of every thought and every feeling of the machine to get a far deeper perspective on its consciousness than we can ever have with a human. We could compare its inner life with our own inner lives in a way that we never can with humans.

[@axiap001]

+Ansatz66 "but computers can be studied far more closely." - by whom?

[@Ansatz66]

Pierre Axiaq "By whom?" Computers can be studied by the people who build them, the people who know how they work, aka humanity. If we build a computer to think, then we're also going to build a way to tap into its consciousness and determine what it is thinking without having to rely on what it chooses to tell us. Just like any machine, we can open the cover and look into its workings. If we had that, we could directly measure the subjective experience of the computer.

[@cmvamerica9011]

When a computer can have a headache, I’ll say it is conscious.

[@sergejpopov]

Emergence is the term that is used a lot to explain things. And nobody knows what it means.

[@SocksWithSandals]

One raindrop cannot make a rainbow; One oxygen molecule can't have pressure, One wheel doesn't make a car, One word isn't a language

[@torsion2]

emergence is biological talk for 'as if by magic' or 'miraculous'

[@robertjkuklajr3175]

Running on "meat machines"! Thats very deep! I think Ray is correct in his assessments. If evolution is to go on, regardless of spiritual beleifs, robotics and computer driven conscientiousness does seem to be the next step. I also beleive WHEN that happens we will know our God. As some philosophers claim, we are our own Gods, we will finally know that we are!!

[@rogershrum8977]

I love watching CTT videos, but you can barely hear what they are saying, the volume is so low.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

To be conscious, computers and robots may need to evaluate and implement time factors in relation to surroundings?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would the simple rules for Chinese be able to provide emotional elements for a response in addition to the words / language?

[@waltdill927]

Behavioral elements, maybe. Which are emotions -- and not feelings. Even an unconscious entity could "emote/behave" its correct or incorrect assessment-process of a datum set (be provided with such elements) or record the event; but, if no conscious observer has access to the datum set, the evaluation goes back to a lower probability for a "response correlate" -- say, "R : p 1, p 2 ... p n".

[@jameslovell5721]

Goddammit, turn the volume up!

[@callmeishmael3031]

Consciousness, as conceived here, is dependent on a centralizing factor-a sense of self. Does a computer have a sense of self? The sense of self generated by the brain perhaps has fundamentals not reproducible in a computer, perhaps in the relationship that self has with time.

[@GlaciusTS]

Consciousness is real, but I think people put it on a pedestal it is not uniform throughout time. Consciousness is a state of mind, and the assumption that we remain the same person because we remember who we used to be. Many believe that there is only one you, and that if there are two, one must be an impostor. The truth is far more simple... if you were to get your mind copied 5 days from now and for whatever reason, your body remained alive and retained all prior function, you would likely jump to the conclusion that "One would be me, and the other would be a copy." The truth is, neither of them are you as you are now. Both would have 5 extra days of memories, one set of your memories would move on to a new platform while another remains in your body and both parties have equal rights to those memories. One would bee upset because it is still mortal, and the other would feel empathetic. At the moment of creation, the "copy" has more in common with future "real you" than the present you, mentally.

[@GlaciusTS]

+Psychedelicious What do you mean? If I move to a mechanical platform and my mind is running as fast as a computer, I'll probably want to keep improving it and use old parts to make a backup.

[@GlaciusTS]

+Psychedelicious as we know it, for a moment two consciousnesses would share the same memories, but would experience different things from that point on that would gradually make them differ from each other, similar to how identical twins differ from one another despite being genetically the same, their experiences drive them apart. And consciousness isn't a switch that simply exists or does not. It varies between organisms. As we develop, our minds do not function until a certain point. We require the ability to think to be conscious, once we start thinking, our consciousness gradually develops and becomes more complex. The moment our mind begins to fire, our brain isn't so much conscious but rather is a computer struggling to make sense of reality by looking for patterns in data, that data coming from our senses.

[@GlaciusTS]

+Ironic Mickey We are not the same. You are assuming time does not change the individual, but it does. I can't know for sure who I am going to be 10 minutes from now, but I can assume I won't have changed much. Our consciousness only exists in the present, and is different at different points in time. We simply assume we are unchanged because our memories recall being that person. We aren't going to fall asleep an artist and wake up a physicist, but we are going to wake up a changed person. You have to assume that in 10 minutes, you won't be you, you will be potential version of yourself that experiences 10 more minutes of life. When a mind is duplicated, neither is a "fake", but rather one became two and they are individuals, not the same person but both are entitled to those memories as they mold the decisions they make. There is a reason we look back at our childhood and realize just how different we've become.

[@lynlee6861]

@@GlaciusTS you're confusing human spirit with the spiritual soul. The soul is the seat of our emotions, and knowledge, and memories. The spirit is just who we are known as to others. Like when u talk on the phone, and u know who that person is, u know their spirit. There is a very thin line between the 2. Soul and spirit

[@GlaciusTS]

Lyn Lee The seat of my thoughts and memories and emotions is my brain. It’s just a collection of data. People recognize me on the phone because they recognize my voice and I tell them who I am if they don’t. That’s not MY spirit, that’s THEIR ability to associate a name and a voice with a person in their memories.

[@hazembiqaeen]

Here's a question: Is a simulation of a "conscious" being conscious?

[@ingenuity168]

5 April 2019

[@wkboonec]

Will "it" have headaches? ... fall in love? ... be afraid of something?

[@electricconzertration8278]

about the headaches: if a machine is programmed to search for a plug to get the electric energy it needs or else it will die, a survival instinct so to say, it might be equipped with a simulation of some pain or stress circuit from the human brain in order to efficiently enforce the electricity search. for the machine, a low battery might then feel like a headache.

[@KingWill333]

Okay..I get it. Any deeper exercise for this guy is to compare everything to computers. Life and computation are not interchangeable.

[@joelucjr]

fix volume get a new amp

[@AlmostEthical]

Fair criticism. I had to crank the volume on my PC to 72, where 20 to 30 is normally enough. It's a bit odd.

[@SuperStargazer666]

Maybe intelligence can existence without consciousness? Maybe compositors will not become consciousness despite getting super intelligent.

[@cmvamerica9011]

Animals are more conscious than humans, of some things.

[@waltdill927]

Test for conscious experience in a dubious entity: I got a joke: Guy can't start his computer. What's the problem? I think we got a open in the circuit -- no juice. Ok. Better check your "O-N / O-F-F" switch. Yuck to be, or no yuck to be -- that is the punch line. If the android "can't get it", there is a good chance it is possibly "conscious". If it does, there is a good chance it is "not conscious". If it always says it does, or says it doesn't, or if there is a seeming inconsistency in responses for a sample of jokes, or the answers seem too random, it is highly probable that it is "not conscious". Of course, it could tell a "joke" -- but almost anything follows from that; and "you" could just lie in a number of ways anyway -- or pull the plug. Or threaten to do so.

[@RickDelmonico]

The question that divides us is whether you can transfer your consciousness to a computer. I say no. Perhaps in the future you will be able to transfer a copy of your consciousness that will believe it is you.

[@RickDelmonico]

+Rick D. Truth is the central core of reality and while men consider themselves capable of discerning truth, it becomes apparent that we are only given a glimpse to some degree of resolution beyond which subjective reasoning always intrudes.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

your consciousness is transferred constantly from one unrealized quantum state to the next unrealized quantum state which both exists and doesn't exist all at the same time. Saying we will be unable to transfer our consciousness is denying the natural order. Your brain is a biological computer.

[@GlaciusTS]

The brain is just data. You are assuming there can only be one "you". Are you the same person that you will be 10 minutes from now? No, he'll be a result of what happens to you over the course of the next 10 minutes. If a duplicated mind isn't a "fake", both are results. Do I worry that transferring my mind will kill me and just make a copy? No. That said, I would want my past body to die before moving to a new platform. I want to remember everything that went through my head as I was dying. This way, I save a potential version of myself the disappointment of realizing they are still mortal and got the short end of the stick. Likewise if brain readings have a cut off point "before" the mind dies, the version of myself that is dying after that point will be terrified, so that is something else I would like to avoid.

[@McGyver777ATGMAIL]

+GlaciusTS the mind is an operating system riding upon the brain hardware and they are both vitally important to the "you." So you either need a way to simulate in near perfection the organic or make new copies that are perfect near quantum level. I'd say simulation of organic will lead to eternal life, but that would need to be one hell of a simulation. Heck, everything is energy already.

[@GlaciusTS]

+McGyver777ATGMAIL duplicating the brain exactly, I agree, would be a difficult task. However, I do believe we will may be able to move the mind to an inaccurate simulation if it exceeds the brain's capabilities. If not, keep in mind, we do not actually need to simulate the brain to take an accurate data reading. All we need before we die is the ability to store the data until a platform can be built that would allow the mind/data to continue it's function.

[@ingenuity168]

To understand Chinese you need to be in a Chinese culture.

[@rakuguy]

dude is obsessed with Chinese and never lists anything specific that is conscious.

[@GeoCoppens]

"Consciousness is the great mystery of inner awareness." Nope, it's neurological, and don't make it mysterious because it shows you're too eagerly looking for spookiness in the universe!

[@abhishekshah11]

You don't get it.

[@abhishekshah11]

Explain the existence of qualia then.

[@GeoCoppens]

@@abhishekshah11 What? Is that soup?

[@GeoCoppens]

@@abhishekshah11 YOU lack neurogical (biological) knowledge! That makes you an ignoramus!

[@thomasingle9983]

anyone else notice how well shaven Ray is?

[@ElusiveTruth]

I'm looking at his hands...and skin... He was born in '52? Ummmmm...I was born in '66 and he looks younger than me...hmmmm