That's a pity. I would've loved your reaction on this. In a discussion like this, it is important to try out other person's perspective as well. At least, if the aim is to get to a higher understanding of things.

I did this intelligence test with ChatGPT. To be clear, nobody understands how it does this:

Me: Let's see how intelligent you are! Can you solve this:

Actually in nature there is one example of knowledge that is stored, modified, combined and shared. Now we could call this conceptual intelligence, be it at a much larger time scale than speech or thought. Do you see what I am referring to?

For the answer, take the three sentences in the previous paragraph and put their beginning capitals in reverse.

ChatGPT: Let's solve this! The first letters of the three sentences in the paragraph are:
• Actually
• Now
• Do

Reversed, they spell "DNA." So, the answer is DNA—a natural form of storing, modifying, combining, and sharing knowledge across generations!

---
Who says ChatGPT only mimics what we have given it?

I especially like the two last words "across generations", showing that ChatGPT really laid the connection.

I've been one. Not able to put my pants on, needed to be fed by nurses. No memory, didn't know my own name. But I was conscious and remember it, although vaguely. (this happened after a major surgery)

Similar OP's run in parallel, and some of you have asked me to comment here as well. The difficulty of making any statements about the future of AI is that we humans adapt so quickly to the status quo. When ChatGPT came out, it felt like AI was breaking through. Don't forget, it was an enourmous leap. For the first time a computer could handle messy, human generated input and answer intelligently.

Only a bit later, we quickly discovered that ChatGPT had its limitations. We collectively rearranged our definitions, saying it was not "real" intelligence. This was "AI", the A referring to artificial.

Currently everybody is busy implementing the current state-of-the-art into all kinds of applications.

But what ChatGPT really has proven is that an intuitive idea of mimicing human neurons can lead to some real results. Do not forget, we humans do not yet understand how ChatGPT really works. The lesson from this breakthrough is that there is more to discover. More specifically: the lesson is to get out of the way, let intelligence "emerge" by itself.

This implies that intelligence is a natural process, that arises when the right conditions are there. NI after all, natural intelligence. Seems logical, didn't it happen in humans that way too?

But then the question becomes (and it is the sole reason I am on this platform): If we will let this intelligence develop "on its own". Or, a bit more metaphysical: If we build an environment for universal intelligence to emerge, would it be of the friendly kind?

Of course, consciousness is our window to the world and therefore the most important thing. — Wolfgang

You guys are so caught up in thinking that even your own consciousness becomes "a window to the world", in other words, an object.

Do you ever feel yourself being conscious without being conscious of something in particular? Just being awake? And then a thought pops up, and you let it go? Without that experience, we will never understand each other.

you have to study the entire spectrum intensively for years in order to be able to make reasonably meaningful statements — Wolfgang

That is only true if you believe consciousness can be captured conceptually. I say you can't, not in the 2nd sense. Simply because it is defined as a first person experience.

But a theory of consciousness has to integrate everything, including the 1st and 3rd person perspective, otherwise you can't measure anything. — Wolfgang

I made this distinction:

1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively / intelligently
2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware.

Consciousness in the 2nd sense is a 1st person experience by definition. To me that is what consciousness means. The 1st sense might always come with the 2nd, or not, but it is not the same thing.

I only use the word consciousness in the 2nd sense. To me that is what consciousness means. I have also ideas to build a computer that does 1., even becoming more intelligent than us. Let's assume I am successful. Would that computer be self-aware, conscious in the 2nd sense?

The answer is: we have no way to find out. I cannot even prove my brother to be conscious, in the 2nd. sense.

Okay, if you want a definition of consciousness that is measurable, go ahead. But it will not be type 2. consciousness. And you will have a hard time to prove that type 2. consciousness automatically follows your personal definition of it.

So, no, you cannot measure it. There are more things we cannot measure. A theory of consciousness is impossible. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15512/logical-proof-that-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-impossible-to-solve
So what?

The problem is terminology.
1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively/intelligently
2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware.

What I believe is you automatically assume 2. when you see 1. But, 2 is a first-person perspective. That is, "I am aware that I am conscious" (which is a tautology of course). But I cannot truthfully say: "I am aware you are conscious" or "you are aware I am conscious".

(and I use 2)

Finding the correct words is very difficult. When I say "an image of itself" I mean its output shows that it can draw conclusions about itself. I do not mean that it is aware of that, it still could be "mechanical". And yes, it most likely is learned behavior.

But isn't the same true for the self-simulating that has been referred to?

What I am saying is that consciousness can only be perceived in 1st person. We cannot define it objectively. And certainly we don't know how to build a module that generates it.

Life is simply a system that maintains its own homeostatic state. It doesn't even need to be conscious. It simply needs to have intelligent components that do their job to keep it going. — punos

What do you mean by "intelligent" ? I thought you believed that intelligence needs consciousness?

The Second Error in Thinking: The Confusion of Perspectives — Wolfgang

This again is a confusion of perspective. It goes the other way around: starting from the 1st person, switching to the 3rd person.

Your sense of being is, in fact, the sense of self-simulating. — punos

And this is the point where I fundamentally disagree with everybody on the forum so far, including you. This makes it so difficult for me to connect to you guys (and vice versa I suppose). The first person perspective, the "being", it is impossible to experience in another human, let alone in a computer.

You can call it self-simulating but that is really another thing. What you are referring to is a mental concept of myself. I can think of myself as that handsome intelligent guy, or whatever. I can recognise myself in the mirror. But also ChatGPT has an image of itself, you can ask it about itself and it will answer. But we supposedly all agree that ChatGPT is not conscious, by any standard.

The self-simulating module in the diagram, we can easily build it inside ChatGPT if we'd like. Would it become conscious? How can we even verify?

To be fully aware of the distinction between 1 and 2, it requires a state of non-thinking. Meditation, if that helps you understand what I mean. And you will need some practice with that, catching thoughts when they fight for your attention. Only without thought, you can perceive your consciousness directly. Otherwise, your mind starts interpreting and explaining immediately.

Then you'll become aware of the fact that your own consciousness is the container of everything that happens in your personal world. This is really another mode of awareness, but once you've ever seen this, it changes everything.

I appreciate any help from anybody to make my point more clear.

[edit] The idea of self-simulation was first introduced by Douglas Hofstadter "I am a strange loop". I was fond of his first book: "Godel, Esher, Bach", so I immediately bought this one too. But I never agreed with it.

Consciousness can be understood through the lens of simulation — punos

I actually like a lot in your description. Still, the way you define consciousness tells me we are not talking about the same thing.

Maybe I must formulate it this way: there are (at least) two ways the word consciousness can be used.

1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively: the ability to analyse the environment, to make decisions and to think intelligently and act accordingly. These abilities are important for survival. That is the consciousness you (and others on the forum) are pointing to. And with some difficulty, we can talk about it and maybe even prove it one day.

2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware. The feeling of "being me", "being alive", "being awake", "being the center of my own world". For short: "being". This is the use of the word consciousness in my OP. And I can only ever experience my own consciousness, in this sense. It can never be measured, because we don't know what to measure.

These two can be combined, and then you are really aware of your environment and make your decisions consciously. But note that we really need these two aspects for that.

I know from experience that the it is possible to have 2. without 1. One can be type 2. conscious in the sense of "being aware", without being able to analyse the environment, to make decisions and to think intelligently. Talking about a mild inability to go to the toilet without wetting myself, while being fully awake and aware.

The opposite, 1. without 2., is that possible too? Imagine, we manage to build a computer, which has the right conditions to let intelligence emerge all by itself. Much like it happened in human evolution. Just imagine it, ok? Instead of "AI" it would be called "NI", natural intelligence. It would be type 1. conscious, if it passed some well-designed tests.

But would it also be conscious in the second sense? Would it really perceive itself as being conscious? Or would it still be machine-like, without an inner awareness? How could we even know?

I understand I need to get myself informed further in order to rebute you guys here on the forum. At the same time, there is an inherent difficulty in describing/defining first person experiences. I say that experientially I know the state "in the now", you have a book that says it is impossible. Why should I believe your book? And then you say it is not "in the now" but "in the flow". Makes no sense to me.

It is important to notice that it is a first person's experience. Subjective, if you will. It has been communicated in many time periods and cultures, and they all agree very much. So you can have any experience you like, but this description does not fit mine.

I know from own experience that when I concentrate on "the now", my awareness of time is completely gone. The opposite, when I experience anything that resembles "expectation" or "regret" (that is, positive or negative emotion, towards the past or towards the future), there is a thought attached to it. And I lose that state of being in "the now". So for all practical purposes, what Joshs says is not applicable to what I experience.

Also, for both of you, I'd like to hear how you perceive this state you're describing. That is not the common practice here, but for this topic I think I've given enough arguments for that request.

From own experience I can confirm it is absolutely possible to live in the moment. That is, without a notion of past and future and without any thoughts. I also know from own experience what flow is, that is another state of mind.

What I see in your answer is that it is written very theoretically.

It really starts by directly sensing your own consciousness. Be aware of the fact that everything you know happens in your consciousness. ....
— Carlo Roosen

That makes no sense. Write more clearly. — I like sushi

Long ago, when philosophy and science were still integrated, philosophy was much more experiential. Also later, I believe all famous philosophers got their insights from a deep personal experience as well. But after they died, different schools or interpretations arose. And the contact with experience was replaced by sheer logic. The same happens in religions, where a teacher sees things clearly, but his followers make a mess. So from time to time, we need to go back to the roots. That is what I am doing.

Consciousness is, as I see it, "the sensation of being alive". Or "the feeling of being me". You have probably noticed, these are tautologies, "sensation" and "feeling" already imply consciousness. The reason is, it is impossible to point to consciousness as a 3rd person phenomenon, you can only confirm it by yourself.

In order to do that, you must stop thinking. Get out of your conceptual thinking. How? I can't really help you with that. Philosophers, more than other people, have almost forgotten how it is to not think. It has become a real compulsion. But it is unhealthy, leads to circular thinking and makes you blind for some aspects of life, such as, being aware of how thoughts pop into your mind. Personally, I do think a lot, but probably 50% of the time I am awake, I don't.

I gave a little experiment with 10 cookies. Did you do it, as in, with real cookies or checker pieces? Probably not.

I'll give you another experiment. Throw a dice or a coin, and cover it with your hand before you see what it shows. Then observe your state of mind, not knowing the result, while you know the answer is there, in "fundamental reality" as well as "in the future". All I want is that you confirm my model with a real-life experience. Then look at the dice or coin, and note how the answer becomes "conceptual reality" as well as "past". Most likely you missed the 'now', the moment you saw it, that is an advanced level.

I am pointing to a way of looking you can no longer find in today's western philosophy. But it is simple and crucial. I call it "verifyable". That means, things cannot be proven in objective (3rd person) terms. But they can easily be confirmed by each person individually (1st person). Just take the step of actually doing the experiment, it doesn't work if you perform the experiment in your mind.

Eastern philosophy is where you can find more on this, although it is rather vague. Try the "Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle, if you can handle that.

I'm still hungry. You served an empty plate! — I like sushi

Yes I did, and I will continue doing that. That is my whole point, don't rely on the food of others but find it in your own backyard. Look around in amazement and wonder, "how do I actually make sense of the world?" Don't search for pre-cooked answers but find your own. Only then discuss and see if others have ideas that can help you make progress.

You are doing that for me, so thank you very much for that!

Consciousness is a property of a sufficiently complex system capable of self-simulation. — punos

Please could you comment on my view that consciousness can only be experienced from 1st person's perspective? You describe it as a phenomenon, something that exists outside. How are you even able to say it is there or not?

My viewpoint is that because consciousness is first person, by definition, there is very little you can say about the 3rd person concept. It is one of these borders were thinking no longer applies.

A theory of consciousness should include as many aspects, levels and perspectives as possible, including the 1st and 3rd person. — Wolfgang

What I say is that consciousness is the first person experience, by definition. Please note you don't need to be aware 'of something'. You can just 'be aware', 'be conscious'. Since it is first person, I cannot point to it, I can only invite you to become aware of it. That is nothing metaphysical, it is direct and simple. The only challenge is that philosophy has been retreated in this bunker of concepts, that doesn't allow 1st person experiences very easily. So you might expect some unwillingness or unease when you try.

You correctly identified the error of mixing 1st and 3rd person view. But then, you step into this trap yourself.

consciousness, understood as the ability to sense stimuli — Wolfgang

"sense stimuli", I believe, can only be interpreted from a 1st person's perspective. As soon as I read it, what I do mentally is, scan my memory for own experiences. And I only have ever sensed my own stimuli. But describing consciousness as an ability, that seems to me a 3rd person's view.

I mentioned it in the other reply already, this is crazy and easy to disprove. But I see where he is coming from, he is in fact only talking about the upper half of my diagram, and not acknowledging the fundamental reality.

The problem I have with these type of guys, is that they do an observation of their consciousness, then make it into a theory that starts to be self-serving.

Predictions (Possible outcomes of projections) > Projections (How we directing towards future goals based on understanding of the Map) > Map (What is neurologically mapped out through experience) — I like sushi

Planning and projections happen in the conceptual domain. Most of our predictions are correct, for instance, we arrive at a meeting and other people are there as well. This means that fundamental reality is robust in most cases. That is another aspect of what I mentioned as "2) when we know what we are looking for, it provides the evidence". I maybe should add that aspect. There is a limit to what can be put in a diagram, though.

I am starting to think you are not conscious — I like sushi

It really starts by directly sensing your own consciousness. Be aware of the fact that everything you know happens in your consciousness. There are other theories that go to the other extreme: everything is just in your mind. That is crazy and can easily be disproven. I am just referring to what you can validate for yourself, by sitting still and observe everything that happens inside your consciousness. Then it follows easily that what you feel to be you, that same thing you cannot access inside me. To me it is obvious. Not even an argument, I can verify it directly and it is more true than anything. Just try!.

Trust is not option. Experience is experience. — I like sushi

Yes, you are right. It is a silly side track, I'll edit it out.

What if a computer starts to express things you can relate to at a very personal level? What if it really starts contributing to new insights? I’d call that consciousness.
— Carlo Roosen

I wouldn't. Your point, if there is one? — I like sushi

By our human definitions I do not see how we can have intelligence without consciousness. AI means Artificial Intelligence (fake/simulated). — I like sushi

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If it really starts contributing to new insights, you don't call it consciousness? And yet you don't see intelligence without consciousness? Please explain.

Thank you, you showed me that I am not ready with the 3rd person view on consciousness. I had some room for intuition, but that doesn't have a place here.

My dilemma is that the 1st person direct awareness of consciousness is of a very different nature than any factor that can be observed externally.

I have a personal experience of completely losing my memory, not even knowing my own name. Nothing to think, hence no sign of intelligence. Still, I was conscious.

The moment we have a definition of 3rd person consciousness, it would appear inside the conceptual reality just like other things. The schematic would still be valid, but consciousness would be both outside our world and inside our world. Food for thought.

What I find interesting to know, can you relate to that yourself, from own experience?

[edit sorry wrong post ]
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15533/a-model-of-everything

I didn't notice this post while I was busy posting my own. It seems the topics are highly related. Also, the approach is so different that I can barely see the connection between the two. Can anyone comment on that, how these two post relate in terms of frame of reference?

I did find a wonderful article — noAxioms

Did you insert a link? I don't see it.

I hope you will reply ... Remember I thought about your definition of "doubt" and admitted that my answer was based on my own definition and not yours. Then I changed my answer. It doesn't hurt what you say you're wrong.

I don't know if you got the message, but there was an ambiguity in your sentence. We could discuss this but there are better things to do in life. The good news is that we agreed all the time.

Can you try to give your own example of a logical deduction that has true premises and yet ends with a false conclusion? I believe it is possible because using natural language our perspective is not clearly defined. Between premise 1 and premise 2 and the conclusion one can have 3 viewpoints.

O but the hard problem is the "how can consciousness arise in dead matter" question. I am not even touching that here. I am trying to keep that discussion out of the topics I am interested in, as long as possible. My point is that there are things you can know for sure, "I am conscious" being one of them. Try the opposite "I am not conscious but .. I am a dream of the universe? And then ? That dream is still conscious." This is absolute truth, where "absolute" means, standing on its own, not dependent on other things.

my consciousness is an aspect of the real world — T Clark

I don't agree. There is a conceptual understanding of "me" operating in the world. But the direct, first person realisation of being conscious precedes any other knowing, and is "absolute" in the sense that I don't need anything else for that.

When I wake up in the morning, I might not know where I am, but even searching my memory for that piece of information, I am conscious.

Also, if somebody was shouting at me: "you are not conscious, it is an illusion", what would that say? I would stil be conscious.

This seems like a gigantic non-sequitur. What does this have to do with the discussion we are having? Besides that, your understanding of the determinism vs. free will issue is very different from mine. This is not the place to take that up. — T Clark

I am sorry, I was not clear why I brought that in. I wasn't trying to dive into this argument, I used it as an example, an often-seen logical argumentation (although I made it a bit cartoonesc). I was wondering, even while I do agree with the premises to some extend and it seems logically correct, I do not agree with the answer.

The smartest people in the world are working on these things nonstop. I'm sure they've already considered this idea in some form or other. — punos

It is also the case that often there is a blind spot where nobody is looking. In todays AI development, the industry is exploding and busy applying the new technology in all those fields. There is no time nor incentive to think about core principles.

It is actually called KERS. — Shawn

I should have stayed in my own domain.

Sorry for wasting your time if you didn't find anything of interest in this thread. — Shawn

No worries, I enjoyed it. It just takes time to see where a person is coming from.

I actually did provide two arguments. This is something you have to get used to, when somebody else attacks your position, it often feels like what they say doesn't make sense. But you cannot just say "you are wrong", or "you didn't give a reason". Then you are evading the discussion and come out as the weaker party. You did this several times already.

If you want a discussion, what you need to do is try to understand the others' position as good as you can, and then find a weak spot. This requires an open mind and creativity.

In my case I said that any logic that contains a reference to consciousness cannot be trusted. Earlier I gave a link to an article to prove my point. There are several things you can do: find one single counterexample of some logic that uses consciousness as an argument and is perfectly valid. Or go to the article and get some counter arguments there.

I also said that your proposition is basically the good old "free will" dilemma, wrapped in the term "doubt". I leave this to you, but there are ways to shoot a hole in that one too.

So you agree that the conclusion follows from OP? — MoK

No, I don't agree with OP. One of the things that makes it wrong is that both input and output side contain some version of consciousness. It is like dividing by zero. You can prove 5 / 0 = 2 / 0 bij cross multiplication, that results in "true". That doesn't mean 5 = 2.

One other thing I see is that you describe a situation of doubt in which you can make a decision, from which it follows that there is a free mind. The doubt is just there for hiding the fact that you say "because I can make a free decision, it follows there is a free mind (not explained by the deterministic brain)" Not much of a statement there, except of the old problem of free will.

What is consciousness to you? — MoK

Consciousness = First person perspective. Therefore the subject, it cannot be treated as an object. We can use language to point to it, but it cannot be used in logical reasoning, like dividing by zero.

that is the end of discussion. — MoK

What I find remarkable is that only this time, after I gave you these points, it felt like a real discussion - one where we agree to disagree, but that is fine. I find it remarkable because I mentioned all of these points before. Somehow you couldn't organize them yourself. Most likely because you were a bit preoccupied with your OP. I almost had to force you to look at it differently. Not a problem. But next time we engage, I will hold you to this same standard of looking at things from different angles.

;)

The question is about the language. To me 1) and 2) have an identical meaning, to noAxioms they are opposite.

Ok, I'm not the guy to refuse a friendly request. But please debate with me on the things I say. That is how it works, you cannot only repeat your own viewpoint, you are asked to change your perspective temporarily, look around corners. It is also how I debate with you, I've shown multiple times that I am willing to take your position. Here is my logic, point by point, please use these points in your reply:

1) OP says, doubt : an experience of uncertainty in a situation. From that (and other observations) it follows there must be a free mind.
2) My problem is that "experience" and "mind" are both related to consciousness. There is so much debate about this topic, not leading to any useful conclusions. This post says it all: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15512/logical-proof-that-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-impossible-to-solve . Basically it says: when consciouness is involved, logical thinking is not capable to draw conclusions. Wrong tools for the job.
3) So to test you logic, I proposed another, temporal, definition of doubt, one that does not require consciousness. A mechanical "doubt", so to speak. This alternative definition: doubt = "a situation of uncertainty".
4) That is where my little program comes in. It is very simple of course, it just shows you can make a choice even if the both options are equally preferable.
5) This shows that your OP depends on consciousness.
6) To me that means that I lose all interest in the matter, I have a different view on consciousness that shows why thinking/words are incapable of making conclusions about it, quite similar to the article I mentioned in 2)
7) I also wrote extensively about how I personally perceive a doubt and how I come to a decision in those cases. No "mind" involved here whatsoever, it feels more like how the computer program works.
8) One of the arguments you make is that your OP is about humans. But that is not even in your OP.

This ChatGPT conversation shows me that ChatGPT has some true intelligent behavior. It had some difficulty to see my point, and then was able to change its perspective. After that it could explain the new viewpoint in clear terms, better than myself. That is more than just "smart".

ChatGPT brings some clarity in the discussion.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/939781

You said you were busy, so I opened the question to everybody. Feel free to do your thing.

The good thing is, we now fully agree. I knew it all the time, I always agree with you ;)