my interpretation is not based on a deep reading and pondering of her works, I had not heard of her before your link. — universeness

I had not heard of her before either nor have I read the whole article myself. It was just an example I brought up --it does not represent me or my views-- to show that there are different approaches on the subject of "mind vs brain" today. That's why I said that you can find more of them if you like.

Besides, there are much more important works about the nonlocality of the mind and consciousness. For instance, Menas Kafatos' (of Greek origin too, who I'm sure you know) "The Nonlocal Universe" and "The Conscious Universe", in which he talks about quantum phenomena, a subject I know you like a lot. Another very interesting person --with a PhD in both Philosophy and Computer Engineering, whom I'm also sure you know-- always within the context of consciousness and quantum Physics is Bernardo Kastrup. I know a little about the work of either of them. I came to know about them during my research on Univeral Consciousness a few year ago. (Their works are still in my long "waiting" list of subjects for a further exploration!)

She does not mention human consciousness in this opening statement, so does she consider human mind and consciousness, synonymous? — universeness

I really don't know.

If you follow her sub-links you get a clearer picture of her proposals. — universeness

Maybe. But I have other priorities for exploration rearding the subject, as I mentioned above.
Again, I don't think you must stick to that reference. There are more important ones, which also involve quantum Physics, a subject you like.

***

BTW, with all that talk --mainly from you-- about quantum Physics, I'm planning to relive my knowledge which I have left behind some 30 years or so!
BTW #2, yesterday, I came across a very interesting view regarding "quantum reality" --from a person with whom we exchange views in another medium. It is he who brought up the subject, not me. Interesting coincidence!

***

Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words. — universeness

I'm not aware of this, but I consider it probable. Sorry if I look I'm ignoring your points. But to be honest, and please do not be offended, I sometimes I browse through and even I skip long passages on subjects that I have not good knowledge of, line Physics, as I have mentioned. And this does not refer specifically to you .
Anyway, what are they?

[Re mind and consciousness]What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous? — universeness

[/quote]
If you refer to the article, again, I really can't say. I mean, it would be unwise from my part if I did.
As for my personal views on the subject. Mind and consciousness are two totally different kind of things. But this subject is a topic of itself! :smile:

Another trick is to corral your opponent into a biased category that is easier to dismiss with a wave of the hand : "Strawman". — Gnomon

Right, there are many ways to avoid direct confrontation! :smile:

"Dividing the Indivisible" sound like a very technical approach. Where did you run into such an infinitesimal argument? :smile: — Gnomon

It's you who is underrating it! :grin:
"Sophism": "a clever but false argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive." Do you consider this an insignificant or unimportant example?
Then check "sophism" in ancient Greece, as well as Zeno's "paradoxes", which are blatant cases of fallacious reasoning.

[Re intelligence] it's unclear as to what this means. We can describe physics in terms of intelligence too, but then we are being misleading. — Manuel

Well, although intelligence is indeed a quite complex faculty to explain exacty how it works --as most human faculites-- it can be viewed from a practical aspect. That is, think what we mean when we apply it in real life. E.g. an intelligent student is one who can learn and apply what they know easily. The solving of problems shows intelligence. (This is where IQ tests are based on.) And so on ...

several advances in AI are quite useful. — Manuel

Right. AI is based on algorithms, the purpose of which is to solve problems. And this is very useful for those who are involved in its creation and development, because actual human intelligence increases in the process of creating an "artificial" one. And it is equally useful to those who are using AI products, but from an another viewpoint.
All this of course applies to all kinds of machines, inventions, medicine, and to technology in general. They are all products of human intelligence.

I don't understand the behavior and attitude of people. The state warns against the consumption of these "drugs," and randomly, people want to consume even more. — javi2541997

This kind of reaction is similar to that of the children when you forbid something to them. Some ot them start revolting and want it more than before. Also, have you noticed how youngsters react to bulling? Some of them are teasing their bullies and thus they prokoke the bullying themselves. This also happens between young brothers and sisters who are about the same age. The weaker provoke the stronger ones and they insist after taking a bashing. This was happening for a lot of years with my niece and nephew when they were young.
All this I guess reflects the protest and revolt of the weak against power. It's the only thing they can do since they cannot fight back. But of course, it's also reflects the irrationality of the people. It's the human condition ...

the state is making revenue with them thanks to the taxes — javi2541997

I believe this is a necessary byproduct rather than an action aimes at profitability.
In Greece, they have done that in the past for both the alcohol and the cigarettes. But, although I was a heavy smoker and I also used to drink back then, I didn't protest. On the contrary, I supported it and tried to smoke and drink less. (Mainly from lack of cash flow, of cource! :smile:)

What if the owner of the liquor store is just doing his job and the state should be responsible for all of this? — javi2541997

Applying an increased tax on alcohol might have an effect. It is the most a state can do. It cannot forbid the selling of alcohol. Remember what effects its prohibition had with the alchohol ban in US in the 1920s. Beside fostering the rise of organized crime and the American Mafia. Also, people always find ways to sell prohibited things. A strong example in our times is the selling of street drugs. It just prospers. (Maybe also with the help of the governments, the police, etc.)

The state could force applying "warning" labels on alcohol bottles, as it did --and does?-- with cigarettes. I don't know what effect that had in the selling of cigarettes, but from what I know from my Marketing studies, the first time it was used in US, there had been findings about some cigatrette companies whose sales were increased!

All this worry about AI when we have much, much more serious problems with regular human I, makes me think such worries are very much misaligned. — Manuel

I agree. Good point.

Also, not much is known about human intelligence, so to speak of the intelligence of something that isn't even biological should make one quite skeptical. — Manuel

I also agree. Only that I believe the term "intelligence" is used here metaphorically, symbolically and/or descriptively rather than literally. in the general sense of the word and based on the little --as you say-- we know about actual intelligence.

Philosophical fallacies — Gnomon

Interesting list.
I would add "Zeno-type pseudo-paradoxes -- Dividing the indivisible (Dichotomy of space and time)"
(One of my favorite fallacies to talk about.)

If you prefer me to state that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain — universeness

I had never maintained that consciousness is not 100% contained in the human brain. That would mean that is is in part physical and in part non-physical. How could I believe that, if I have said so many times that it's nature is non-physical and that even mind is separate from the brain?
(Yet, there is another kind of "consciousness", that of which Science talks about when they refer mainly to the senses. The philosophical literarure --and hopefully all in here-- does not mean and talk about that kind of "consiousness".)

Dr Leaf, does not suggest that her separation of mind and brain means that 'mind' is not located within the brain. She types:
The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. — universeness

Thnk you for reading the article (if you had not read it before.)
I am located in I use my car but I am separate from it. I am not my car.
I have alread talked about the cooperation of the mind with the brain. Consciousness too needs the brain so that perception of the external environment takes place. In short, we can say that the brain is the connection of the mind/consciousness to the physical world.

The mind also changes the brain. — universeness

I wouldn't say that. The brain is an autonomous system based on a stimulous-response mechanism. It works by receiving and sending signals. The mind cannot send such signals. It can only receive and interpret signals. This is how e.g. I recognize a tree --i.e. undestand that what I see is a tree-- when I look at it.

People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. — universeness

Fortunately so! :grin:

experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness

Certainly. Experience can occur and be obtained independently of the brain. E.g. the experience of emotion, which comes from thought (memory etc.)

I would of-course ask her exactly where she thinks the 'mind' is located as she does not discuss this. — universeness

And she does well. No one can talk about mind's "location", since location refers to physical things and the mind isn't one. (But I cannot talk on her behalf. Better ask herself to be sure! :grin:)

Do you have any quotes from her that indicates her clear determination, regarding my location question? — universeness

I don't. It's just an article I have picked up. I also read it for the first time. I fact, not the whole of it. You have much more patience and eagernes in learning new things than myself. I can say even remarkable, in my standards! I take off my hat to you on this! :clap:
And, in the process, I learn myself a lot of things from you! :smile:

My high credence level goes to proposal that human 'consciousness' and all it's sub-properties, are due to human brain activity. Human emotions/instincts/intuition/imagination etc result from brain activity, and the brain, is the sole source of all such phenomena, IMHO! — universeness

Thanks. This is what I wanted to know. I'm sure you have talked about all this many times in this place and elsewhere, but not with me. (At least, I don't remember so. Quite possible. My memory often betrays me.)

I don't mean to suggest that my opinion on the source of human consciousness, is completely ossified — universeness

I know.

I would say it would, 'shock me to my core,' if my opinions on the topic were PROVEN to be completely wrong — universeness

IMO, you ate not wrong. It is that you look the subject from a different angle and use different means --or tools, if you want-- to reach knowledge and truth . From what I have come to know from your posts and our exchanges, you are a Science-oriented person, and by consequence, you are interested and use Science's methods and path, in general. I have said already that 80% of the members --with whom I have "talked" and/or read their topics-- are Science-oriented. It's very rare that I here personal experiences. Personal experience is ignored in Science, if not frowned upon, as far as truth and reality is concerened. Yet, Science forgets that an individual's reality is not formed based on facts and logic, but also from personal experience. I use the word "experiencing", which is a dynamic process, to differentiate it from "eperience", which is a static concept.
So, this is where Philosophy should come in, to explain what science can't. Unfortunately, from what I see, Philosophy, not only in this place but elsewhere too, instead of using Science as part of its amunition in its quest for knowledge and truth, it is devoured by it!
(Note: I use "Science" with capital "S" to mean "conventional" science, in the Western world. And I use "Philosophy" with capital "P" to mean "modern" philosphy, also in the Western world.)

I would personally, be forced to consider adopting the dualist label. — universeness

I would not accept that! :grin:

From the start of our exchanges on TPF, you have suggested that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain. — universeness

That's true. Ah, so that's why you refer to "dualism" and "dualistic" ... Well, I never use this term --or any other "ism" for that matter-- to describe my views. I don't like labels. And I don't follow any theory.
For the simple reason that if I adopt the term "dualism" --or any other "ism"-- I will have to accept other facets of it, with which I don't agree. I lke Descartes's principle but I find his theory obsolete, in general. So, I'm not a "dualist" or "Descartian" (Cartesian) and I don't have "dualistic" views. See what I mean?

Have I misinterpreted your viewpoints from the start? — universeness

Certainly not. I was very clear, and youself you said I am a WYSIWYG kind of person.
If there's some misundestanding, it is due to the use of terminology. See now why I dislike and avoid "isms"? So, one more time, I am not a "dualist", I don't have "dualistic" views and I'm not known for my "dualism". Because then I could say that you are a "monist", you have "monistic" views and you are known for your "monism". Which I think is silly, isn't it?

if human consciousness is not located 100% in the human brain then why would the proposed consciousness of a future ASI be any different? — universeness

I don't know about the proposed consciousness of a future ASI ...
I could do a research and study the subject, but I prefer not. I trust you and I leave this subject entirely in you hands! :smile:

human consciousness is a combinatorial effect of everything the human brain IS and DOES. — universeness

OK. But, assuming that an individual is identified with his brain, i.e. he is his brain --which is quite a conflicting and paradoxical idea-- can't this be applied also to an individual's personality, behaviour, etc.?

The source of consciousness is cited by the vast majority of neuroscientists as the brain, not the body. — universeness

Here's a good reference:
A Neuroscientist Explains The Difference Between The Mind & Brain
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist
(I'm sure that you can find a lot of them, if you are interested in the subject.)

Re Wiki — universeness

Yes, I know. That is why I asked you how do you understand the concept of "consciousness", i.e. what does it mean to you.

I have found no compelling arguments that and aspect of 'mind' has an existence 'outside' of the brain. — universeness

I can undestand this. And I respect your views on the subject, independently of whether they are consistent with the overwhelming majority of the scientific and philosophical views or not.

I thought you did assign a significant credence level to those positions. — universeness

If you mean the above mentioned overwhelming majority, then no. There's also a big minority --religious and philosophical-- who think differently and believe other things regarding consciousness and the mind. And, don't forget --unfortunately, we always do!-- that we are talking within the frame of the Western world. But there's also Eastern world --that we usually forget-- in which the overwhelming majority thinks differently and believes other things regarding consciousness and the mind.

Indeed, if we place the the two "groups" on the plates of a weighing scale, I don't know to which side the scale will tip. :smile:

It would still be interesting to push you a little more and ask for more detail about how emerging tech 'affects' your dualism. — universeness

What do you mean by "my dualism"? When did you hear me talking about such a thing? :smile:
Also, what do you mean by "dualism" regarfding the current context of the discussion (AI, ASI, etc.)?

If science EVER demonstrates that when a system is endowed with certain properties, it will become 'conscious' as we understand the concept. — universeness

Here too, I would like to know how do you understand the concept so that I can answer based on that. E.g. Science in general uses the term consciousness as a feature of the body. Neurobiolgy talks about the mind, and, lately, from what I have read, it starts to differentiate it from the brain. And so on.

perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break! — universeness

I consider this a healthy thinking! :smile:

I hope you have become a little more intrigued, regarding 'The biological computer.' — universeness

I have.

I think it's worth trying to keep up with developments in quantum and biological computing. — universeness

I'll do my best. But I can't promise anything! :grin:

I think these are gong to change the human experience very significantly indeed. — universeness

AI has already changed the human experience. But this has been done gradually. As the developments in other scientific/technological fields have. Only that the progress in all these developments is achived geometricly, i.e. faster and faster. But who knows, maybe some spectacular, revolutionary change awaits us in the future.
All this is fine. However, I would like more to see a progress in the human sciences too. And with them, the human condition. Which, unfortunately, I think deteriorates instead of improving. And this is sad.

You could have told a great story to my S5/S6 students — universeness

I'm afraid they would have slept away whithin a couple of minutes!
(Even if I am a good speaker and teacher.)

Well, as I suggested earlier, I find such speculation far more credible, than anything the theist or theosophists offer, for the distant future of humankind. — universeness

Certainly.

In a similar vein, does the idea that a technology such as a mecha based ASI or a human created 'biological' (orga based) super intelligence becoming self-aware, challenge your dualist view of the existence of human consciousness? — universeness

I can't say. 1) I can't compare mechanical with organic computing because they are totally different and 2) I just came to know about the second type, so I don't know even the basics in this field.
In any way, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, that a human-like consciousness --and mind, in general-- can be attached to either of them.

My knowledge falters somewhat, when it comes to the physics level of electricity, and signals flying through the air and rushing down cables and analogue and digital forms. — universeness

If yours (knowledge about electricity) falters, mine can barely walk! :grin:

Digital to analogue conversion (modem's) were needed, due to the sending of data down the already existing telephone network ... — universeness

Bad old times ... Struggling with 16 bps ...
(The Sound of dial-up Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0)

All sounds like good fun to me anyway! — universeness

Same here.

I loved assembly code — universeness

I cant say I loved assembly per se. I rather loved what you could do with it!

I even had the 'accumulator' as my 'favourite register,' :lol: I know how geeky that sounds, but I type it with a happy smile on my face. :grin: — universeness

This is perversion! :grin:

It could have been worse, you could have been a binary programmer in the days of punch cards — universeness

I've been there too. Punching FORTRAN processable cards to be inserted into those 10 meters long computers. And waiting for my turn a quarter or half an hour to get the printed resuts (if the code was relatively small) or even having to come next day to get them (if the code was quite long)!

Bad old times ...

I would call it an AGI or ASI — universeness

AGI and ASI are still AI, only much more develloped. In fact AGI is also called "strong AI", and it comes from AI research. ASI is also based on AI and is considered "strong AI".
But what I am talking about --biocomputers-- is something totally different. It has totally different foundations. Still, as you say, all that are at their infance and mostly speculations ...

Concepts like biological computers and organoid intelligence could lead to a library's worth of new ethical discussions. — universeness

That's another story. It reminds of the ethical issues with Dolly the sheep ...

Organoid intelligence and biocomputers won't pose a threat to AI — universeness

You shouldn't take to heart what I said about your changing direction ... :smile:
Besides, I'm with you. I'm a AI fan and I don't want it to die! :grin:

Biological computers may prove even more interesting than quantum computers — universeness

Indeed. I agree. Let's see what awaits us ...

Proteins were the best candidate as far as I know. — universeness

I had no idea about all this. Watching today's news paid off ... in an unexpected way!

One biological computer could potentially hold all human information currently memorialised on Earth. It could easily store the contents of a human brain. — universeness

I see that you can process all this quite admirably. But I'm not surprised at all. :wink:

But, at the moment it's mostly conjecture and speculation — universeness

But you like that, don't you? :razz:

Glad you liked it!
I think it's something rare. I consider it a great Seminar on Logic.

And it's thanks to you that I had this opportunity to listen to this pearl.
(I have downloaded the video and kept the audio as MP3.)

Great.

Please, find the time to watch --actually, listen-- Russel's video. Even I found the time for that! :smile:
I think you will love it. There's subtle and witty humor in it, which always make watching/listening easier and more fun.

Thanks for bringing in these reading suggestions.

Re Boethius's "The consolation of philosophy":

I had a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Consolation_of_Philosophy
Very interesting key subjects for contemplation and discussion: mind, happiness comes from within, predestination vs free will, determinism, the problem of evil, human nature, virtue, and justice. Wow! What an advanced philosophical agenda for that period of time!

***

Re Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not Christian":

Bertrand Russell answers Why I am not Christian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3b35KkSo-A
Highly recommended! :ok:

From https://weneedtotalkaboutbooks.com/2016/09/15/book-review-why-i-am-not-a-christian/, I liked that Russell had not been engaged in finding flaws in the arguments for the existence of God --anyone can do this and I guess a lot have done it publicly-- but instead:
"Russell chooses to devote his energy to the more difficult interrelated targets proposed by religion’s defenders; that religion, even if untrue, provides an ethical framework to prevent immoral behaviour, it provides emotional comfort, it is useful and beneficial to society and, specific to Christianity, that Christ was among the best and wisest of men."
This is a much more interesting approach and I have also used it myself a few times.

***

About book reading:
The thing is that I have a backlog of materials to read based on priority, and I devote very little time of my life in reading books. To this, add that I am not a fast reader!
I believe this is not the case for you and a lot of other people in here.

P.S. I could try audio books, but I don't think one can find special books one wants to read, like the above for instance. The other solution is our second-to-book companions: YouTube videos! E.g. the one from Russel I brought up above.

Maybe. If someone has nothing better to read! :grin:

Ola! I noted down the first two, to have a look at them.
(I dislike a lot existentialism (re Kierkegaard) and esp. Sartre).

I think chatGBT might have theistic tendencies. — universeness

Ha! :grin:
Well, I don't know about "theistic" but certainly spiritual. Maybe dualistic too. :smile:
Anyway, it's good --for me at least-- to "hear" things like that even if they do not come directly from a human. (They come of course indirectly from and are based on human thinking ...)

To have feelings, there must be a body that can feel. — Athena

Just en passant, the body cannot process feelings (emotions). It can only feel their effects and suffer its consequences. The mind is the "place" where feelings are created --i.e they come from-- and processed.

(I just fell on that because you were referred to in a message I received from @universeness.)

I just checked again to see if I could set up an account and I was successful — universeness

Great. But I expected that, of course.

Thanks for inspiring me to check the OpenAI status — universeness

You are welcome!

what cable did you use for the transfer? — universeness

From what I can remember --35 years ago!-- I asked a H/W guy to make this cable for me by joining two serial cables.

If it was a simple twisted wire pair telephone cable ... am I missing something? — universeness

It rings a bell. But even if you missed something. I am not at all the right person to tell you! :smile:

Did you send the file as a payload stream with start and stop bits and a parity bit? — universeness

It also rings a bell. But, as I remember I had read only the necessary, basic literature on the subject --a couple of pages, maybe-- just to do the job. The rest --as far as programming was concerned-- was serial port handling. And one can do such things only with machine language. I remember a colleague, working only with a high level language, called me the "Last Mohican", referring to my expertise in assembly language, which was not used anymore in programming circles. Well, I don't know if I would had made all that money from programming if I didn't program in assembly ...

Remember I told you that if an AI technology would be created that would involve consciousness, that would be not the AI we know but something totally different? Well ...

AI Could Be Made Obsolete by 'Biocomputers' Running on Human Brain Cells
https://www.cnet.com/science/ai-could-be-made-obsolete-by-oi-biocomputers-running-on-human-brain-cells/
This article refers to what I posted in my previous message.

So, maybe you should think of changing direction ... :smile:

I read the article about Hassabis. The stuff with proteins looks quite interesting and promising.
And look what happens sometimes when one gets involved into and talks a lot about a certain subject: it meets this subject in his way without even searching for it. I was just reading the MSN news this morning and one of the subjects was ...

Scientists target ‘biocomputing’ breakthrough with use of human brain cells

https://www.ft.com/content/9f51a30d-eedc-446a-8a5c-d2997c670c65

No, I will not offer a candidate AGI/ASI system that I am not convinced is self-aware. — universeness

:grain: OK, if you want to raise the bar.

The future perfect — universeness

I noted down the link. On;y that I will check it tomorrow because after this, I'll close the store (PC) ...

[Re OpenAI]I am on the list to be connected, the list is full at present. — universeness

Wow, is that so? Well, I know that OpenAI faces a huge overloading problem. Well, most probably the participition was way larger that what tye expected. It can also be for lack of financial resources.

I always enjoyed teaching the network topologies of LAN's and WAN's. — universeness

Oh, then you know much better than me, sir!
(Anyway, Data Networks & Communications was never my strong point, far from that. Too much H/W involved and I'm a S/W man. Also, too much theory. And I'm a practical man. :smile:)

using a couple of old routers and a stripped down stand alone and networked Op system. — universeness

I get the image.
In your turn, get the following image: Before modems came to wide use, in the office I was working we didn't have any, so I created a program in assembly for transfering data from one PC to another, by connecting their serial ports with a cable! I didn't even know what LAN was.

You can be the judge! — universeness

Then, you have lost already! :grin:
No, I can be quite objective and I love challenges. I can easily recognize an argument that is better than mine and acjknowledge it to its owner. (You see, it happens so rarily ... :grin:)

Anyway, in short: I have to do nothing. The burden of proof lies to the person who claims that something is true or exists or occurs or has happened. This is you! :smile: Come to me with valuable finding and I will acjnowldge it to you even if it isn't the final solution, but is relatively close to to the goal of creating an aware AI. Then we will have to move to the next step: a self-aware AI, which is an attribute of humans only. Then we will have to move to the next human attribute: imagination. Which reminds of what I read once, that chess supercomputers --like once was IBM's Deep Blue; I don't know how that has been evolved-- can lose when the oponent makes a move that has no sense or something like that. Such a thing can perplex the computer. Anyway, what is certain, which hold in the past as it still holds today, is that imagination is a human attribute that cannot be transfered to a machine.
What it looks like "imagination" or "creativity" in an AI system is mainly a product of Machine Learning.

Have you tried OpenAI's ChatGPT? (I think I have brought that up some time ago in this thread but it didn't get any attention ...)

Interesting, What op systems did you work on? — universeness

MS DOS (PC machines), of course! I could only transfer a part of my system programming expertise to Windows. Too much to do and my programming career had began to set.

Prode assembly, Motorola, ... — universeness

Yes, all that were a strange and uninviting environment for me. :smile:

As an Analyst at that time, did you find yourself more and more pressured to comply or develop more rigorous 'technical support' systems for client groups? — universeness

Again, my expertise as an analyst was limited to PCs, i.e. mainly MS DOS and later Windows and it was restricted to LANs and small groups and a few clients. For a year I also worked with WANs.

Perhaps yer just a tough dude Alkis — universeness

I'm rather a "realist" (whatever this word rings to peoples' ears)

By the way, when you type universness, don't use the @ on your keyboard. Choose it from the tool list at the top of your blank response box. I then get informed that I have been mentioned — universeness

I know this. I do it when I mention someone other than the person I am replying/commenting to and I believe that my message will be of interest to them. Otherwise, the person I am addressing the message to will be notified anyway.

Well devised plan! :smile:
However, by "judge" I meant who will judge who won the bet? The is, that AI has indeed become self-aware? Because there are already some smarty-pants out there who believe it. And who are ready to vote for you! :smile:

Thank you for youe kind words, @universeness. :pray:
Although, we are not here for that, are we? :grin:

You are more like a WYSIWYG. What You See Is What You Get. — universeness

I believe this fits me and you got it right! :smile:

I would be interested in more details regarding what AI system you used to — universeness

As you well know, AI is a huuuge field, so I'm gettting in and out of it, programming-wise, since I'm involved in all sort of programming fields. And work mainly for my own pleasure and personal development.
I would like to note that I am an autodidact and I don't like theory much. So I miss some "deep" knowledge of AI systems from that aspect. I'm more of a "coder" if you like. Programming was my first profession (1986~1997) and back then I was mainly a system programmer but also an analyst.

So, I am not involved in some particular project regarding AI. Lately, I was working for about month on Web scraping. Veeery interesting field! But in general, I'm just learning more and more about AI, esp. its applications and mainly through experience, as I always did. I just love to program! It's more that a hobby. It's a passion.

As for my 20-year translantion career, an autodidact again, it has offered me a great deal of linguistic knowledge but mainly money! :grin: Something that programming hasn't!

Is it AI NLP systems you worked with — universeness

NLP only by itself is a huuuge subject and --you got that right too!-- it's maybe the most fascinating for me. Most probably because of my rich linguistic background ...

But if you watch the material coming out from current AI experts, such as Nick Bostrom, Demis Hassabis, et al. You should accept that what they are reporting, is not like listening to a preacher talking BS from a pulpit. What they are saying, has a credence level, backed by scientific projections, that we should all pay attention to. — universeness

Yes, I remember well Hassabis, introduded to me by you, and that in my thanking-for-that-introduction answer to you (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718045), I said "Yet, I got almost nothing from there," referring to consciousness. Otherwise, of course I accept what he had to say. (About the other guy I know absolutely nothing and I will have to read about what he has to say on the subject of consciousness.)

Data has no meaning! — universeness

No, it has no meaning in or by itself. The meaning of the data is created by us.
こんにちは is Japanese data and has no meaning. But I can find its meaning from someone who knows it. It means "Hello". Then only these symbols acquire a meaning for me. (Of course, most probably I won't recognize them the next time I see them and they will continue to have no meaning for me ! :grin:)

A book contains contextualised data, labelled data, data with associated meaning — universeness

Exactly. "Data with associated meaning." It has no meaning in or by itself, unless we associate one to it.

That sentence is NOT DATA, it is INFORMATION (data with meaning) — universeness

Right. You have correctly drawn a line between the two, somthing which people in general don't. Even dictionaries don't! They usually use the terms interchangeably.

AI can never become self-aware or even just aware. Awareness is an attribute of life (living organisms).
— Alkis Piskas
Wanna bet?? :grin: — universeness

Sure. But who will be the judge? :grin:

My quote above was referring to what science knows about the exact 'tipping point' ... — universeness

Well, I admit I have to examine this closely --if not study it-- before I can judge.

Developing AGI and ASI may fill in many of those gaps and by doing so, silence any theistic and theosophistic residuals, that are still holding back, human growth and progress. — universeness

This is what I call great aspirations! ... Or should I say, Great Expectations? :grin:

I find it fascinating that ASI might mean our extinction, — universeness

Why am I not afraid of that? I have dozens of other things in my mind that might lead us to extinction, but not that. Well, who knows were you and I would be --if we are still alive-- when such a thing would actually happen? :grin:

I enjoy exchanging views with you also. — universeness

Glad to hear that, @universeness!

You didn't answer my first question (you must have missed it) — 180 Proof

It was a simple question: "Only life can be aware? How do you know this?" How could I missed it? :grin:
I have certainly answered you. Regarding both life and non-life (inanimate objects).
I can't do more than that. Let's snap out of it, OK?

Only life can be aware? How do you know this? — 180 Proof

You mean, what are my arguments about this, right? Because we all know things, don't we?
So my argument is the following: All living organisms respond to stimuli. And to respond to a stimulus one must perceive it in some way, i.e. it must be aware of that stimulus. Also, living organisms are aware of danger, even if this is by instinct.

Anyway, you can find a lot of references on this subject in the Web. Here's an example:

"All living things can respond to their surroundings, just like you can taste something awful then spit it out and shout “YUCK!” And all life comes from other life – just like how you came from your mother and father. So even though we look so different from other living things, we are much more the same than different."
(https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/education/alp/characteristics-of-life/)

You can find many more yourself.

As for inanimate objects, they simply cannot respond to anything, since thay cannot perceive. The can only "follow" the laws of Physics.

I am a retired Computer Scientist who taught the subject for 30+ years Alkis.
I am not exactly an AI neophyte. — universeness

Oh, I was not meaning to invalidate your knowledge, @universeness! I'm very sorry about that! Really. :sad:
I most probably pushed it to far. I do that sometimes. It has nothing to do with the other person. It has to do with myself, who has read and heard --and I still do-- so much crap about AI, that it makes me puke. And this, because I am a AI programmer and I always try do make people aware and know what AI is actually about. But the wall of ignorance is too thick for me to break and it becomes strongher and higher with time. So, maybe it's time for me to stop doing that. In fact, stop caring about that and let people live in their ignorance. Besides, this situation is so old as the dawn of Man.

I'm sorry again, @universeness.

No, ASI is proposed, based on the current advances in AI and by an observed pace of advancement su indicated by such as Moore's law. — universeness

Proposed as what? (I just read the first para of the article to which your link refers to and it talks about an observation, not a proposition. Anyway, this is not the main point here.)

A book contains knowledge but has no understanding until your brain processes it. — universeness

A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".) And it is your mind that process this data, not your brain. The brain can only process stimuli. And stimuli are not data.

An AGI or ASI is a moment of pivotal change or 'singularity,' if and only if it becomes self-aware. — universeness

AI can never become self-aware or even just aware. Awareness is an attribute of life (living organisms).

AI has no undestanding.
— Alkis Piskas
This is correct for all current AI systems imo but not for future AI. — universeness

It is correct for past, present and future AI. You might have read a lot about AI --a lot ope people say a lot of things about it and a lot of speculating is going around-- but IMO you must stick to basics. That is, what AI actually is. If something else is created or develpped based on it, it will be another subject, not AI anymore. (E.g. cloning.)

Science knows very little at the moment — universeness

Science knows a lot about AI already. But if you mean if Science can find how can AI become "aware", well, I don't know of any scientific projects at this moment trying to achieve AI awareness, although there might be some without my knowledge.

Otherwise, I really admire and respect what you do, all the scientific research you are doing on the subject, something which I know you do for many other subjects. I wish I had the necessary patience myself to do the same! :smile: