Don't understand. As I said, once existing (as I define it), it can't cease to exist. — noAxioms

Well, firstly, I just mean that a 'worldline' is a scientific term, invented by a scientist.
From Wiki:
The world line (or worldline) of an object is the path that an object traces in 4-dimensional spacetime. It is an important concept of modern physics, and particularly theoretical physics.

The concept of a "world line" is distinguished from concepts such as an "orbit" or a "trajectory" (e.g., a planet's orbit in space or the trajectory of a car on a road) by inclusion of the dimension time, and typically encompasses a large area of spacetime wherein paths which are straight perceptually are rendered as curves in space-time to show their (relatively) more absolute position states—to reveal the nature of special relativity or gravitational interactions.

The idea of world lines was originated by physicists and was pioneered by Hermann Minkowski. The term is now used most often in the context of relativity theories (i.e., special relativity and general relativity).

Secondly, What is the worldline of a quantum fluctuation? Based on:
The uncertainty principle states the uncertainty in energy and time can be related by, where 1 2 ħ ≈ 5.27286×10−35 Js. This means that pairs of virtual particles with energy = $\Delta E$ and a lifetime shorter than $\Delta t$ are continually created and annihilated in empty space.
When such 'quantum existents' pop in and out of existence 'continuously,' then how can you claim that 'once existing, it can't cease to exist?'

but there are a lot of species and it's unclear how much effort it will find worthwhile to expend preventing all their extinctions — noAxioms

Only the capability of a future AGI/ASI can answer this, alongside whatever directives it has established at the time.

Struct [Strict] scientific conditions does not include anecdotal evidence. — noAxioms

I agree, but there is much disagreement on what constitutes anecdotal evidence, have a look at this recent TPR exchange regarding Ian Stevenson's work.

That sounds weird. Mine is nothing like that. I wake up and am aware of the room, but I cannot move. I can alter my breathing a bit, and my wife picks up on that if she's nearby and rubs my spine which snaps me right out of it. — noAxioms

I don't think Jimmy himself, had experienced being 'held/possessed by demons/angels with accompanying hallucinations, whilst being unable to move.' He reported that he suffered from sleep paralysis on occasion, as you do, but Jimmy also talked about various cases, all over the place where scientific investigation, into such claims as demon possession or divine communication, turned out to be the effects of the more extreme cases of sleep paralysis.

Well, firstly, I just mean that a 'worldline' is a scientific term, invented by a scientist.
From Wiki:
The world line (or worldline) of an object is the path that an object traces in 4-dimensional spacetime. — universeness

Yes, exactly that. Same thing, different wording. Spacetime doesn’t cease to exist, so a line traced through it isn’t something that goes away.

Secondly, What is the worldline of a quantum fluctuation?

One fluctuation (the creation and destruction of a virtual particle pair say) has a very short worldline.

When such 'quantum existents' pop in and out of existence 'continuously,' then how can you claim that 'once existing, it can't cease to exist?

I didn’t claim any particular virtual particle existed. To say so is usually a counterfactual statement, and not being a realist, I don’t hold to the principle of counterfactual definiteness. Sure, the cumulative effect of all fluctuations is definitely measurable, but that effect doesn’t define a worldline of any specific thing.

turned out to be the effects of the more extreme cases of sleep paralysis. — universeness

I’m not familiar with extreme cases. Don’t think mine is all that bad. It’s hard to describe. It’s definitely a mental sort of switch that turns off your motor control while asleep. If you have a defective switch stuck in the on-position, you sleepwalk and such. Mine gets stuck in the off position when its supposed to come on when I wake. You can mentally expend some serious effort to break the barrier in place but it’s hard to do and takes multiple attempts sort of like taking a battering ram to the castle door.
And yes, I’ve done a bit of involuntary sleepwalking. My childhood bedroom faced in the direction of one neighbor whose garage caught fire spectacularly. I was pulled out of bed by my parents and set at the window to watch the show, fire, loud trucks and flashing lights. Don’t remember a dang thing about it. I apparently never woke up, but I found my way back to bed apparently. The description above is all ‘so I’m told’, but the garage was indeed gone the next day. Maybe I was awakened enough for the motor control, but not enough to engage the long-term memory shunt that usually only operates during waking hours. So that’s a second switch that has to go on and off, and it very much didn’t that time.
I pay attention to brain stuff, trying to learn from it. I definitely have two parts that communicate to each other and I can feel the one trying to raise the attention of the other sometimes. One thinks much faster than the other and is amazing at calculus. The other one is slow and does calculus with digits and paper and such, and it’s the slow one that gets the education in school.

I think we’re getting off topic, no? Just chatting at this point.

Why do you assume they will not need to visit other worlds to 'secure,' vital resources ... — universeness

I don't assume that. "Other worlds" themselves are not "vital resources" to spacefaring thinking machines, but are only repositories of indigenous remnants or fossils of parent-species. For instance, countless stellar masses and the vacuum / inflation energy of expanding spacetime itself are not scarce to intelligences which know how to harvest them as computational resources. Instead I assume that astronomical (i.e. relativistic) distances – not resource-extractive territoriality – will mostly keep ASI & ETIMs in their respective galactic and intergalactic lanes.

As for being "aspirational", universeness, we cannot know what spacefaring thinking machines will aspire to other than that their aspirations will be (almost) completely incomprehensible to biospheric intellects (e.g. much much more than 'our merely atavistic territorial expansiveness'). My wildest guesses are that, like gods, they might progressively aspire to (A) simulate 'pocket universes', (B) merge themselves with spacetime itself and (C) extend their intellects to 'the bulk between branes'. :nerd:

Yes, exactly that. Same thing, different wording. Spacetime doesn’t cease to exist, so a line traced through it isn’t something that goes away. — noAxioms

But that's what makes the 'worldline' nothing more than a 'perception of a container of overwritable events.' So every physical 3D coordinate, which represents all the places where an electron (for example) existed can be involved in the 'worldline' of many, many other electrons, many many times. The only difference is time, and the fact that it's not the same electron, even though they are all identical (unlike people.)

The container called spacetime continues to expand and 'worldlines' are being constantly 'overwritten.' So unless spacetime is also 'infinitely(or has a a great number of) Layer(ed)(s),' then THE CONTENT of individual 'worldlines,' do cease to exist, as they get overwritten. So the fact that the spacetime within which events occur and objects assemble, exist for a time and then disassemble, does not cease to exist, seems quite trivial to me.

I think we’re getting off topic, no? Just chatting at this point. — noAxioms

Not really, as sleep paralysis is an aspect that affects consciousness, and emergence is an aspect of consciousness, so there are lot's of valid side paths on a thread titled emergent.

An additional constraint in the special case of the "dark forest" is the scarcity of vital resources. — universeness

I don't assume that. "Other worlds" themselves are not "vital resources" to spacefaring thinking machines, but are only repositories of indigenous remnants or fossils of parent-species. For instance, countless stellar masses and the vacuum / inflation energy of expanding spacetime itself are not scarce to intelligences which know how to harvest them as computational resources. Instead I assume that astronomical (i.e. relativistic) distances – not resource-extractive territoriality – will mostly keep ASI & ETIMs in their respective galactic and intergalactic lanes. — 180 Proof

Then your use of the 'dark forest' analogy seems flawed, based on:

An additional constraint in the special case of the "dark forest" is the scarcity of vital resources. — universeness

and spacefaring thinking machines may well need to replenish their energy resources by whatever means they can, including via planetary resources, some of which may contain life. A prime directive may not be as unlikely as you suggest, in the case of interstellar spacefaring intelligent machines.

As for being "aspirational", universeness, we cannot know what spacefaring thinking machines will aspire to other than that their aspirations will be (almost) completely incomprehensible to biospheric intellects (e.g. much much more than 'our merely atavistic territorial expansiveness'). My wildest guesses are that, like gods, they might progressively aspire to (A) simulate 'pocket universes', (B) merge themselves with spacetime itself and (C) extend their intellects to 'the bulk between branes'. — 180 Proof

Sure, or perhaps they will be as confused about the whole thing, almost as much as we are.
Thanks for your input!

I don't grok your objections but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on how non-anthropocentric 'the post-Singulaity era' will be. Anyway, back to philosopherizing! :wink:

:up:

But that's what makes the 'worldline' nothing more than a 'perception of a container of overwritable events.' — universeness

No idea what you're talking about. I made no mention of perceptions, and I have no idea what an 'overwritable event' might be.

So every physical 3D coordinate, which represents all the places where an electron (for example) existed can be involved in the 'worldline' of many, many other electrons, many many times.

A point in space is an abstract worldline itself, and yes, it can intersect the worldlines of physical things. I hate to use an electron as the example since it isn't classic and hasn't a classical worldline like say a potato, but then a potato at a given moment doesn't occupy a single point in space either. It has a wider worldline.

The container called spacetime continues to expand and 'worldlines' are being constantly 'overwritten.'

Again the 'overwritten' term. I have no idea what you mean by that. It makes it sound like worldlines change, which they don't.
And no, spacetime doesn't expand. Space does, but not spacetime.

So unless spacetime is also 'infinitely(or has a a great number of) Layer(ed)(s),'[/quote]Again, don't know what you mean by 'layers' here. We seem to be talking past each other. Yes, one can slice spacetime into as many slices (layers if that's what you mean), and they can be timelike or spacelike slices, but that doesn't change anything objectively. Events are objective (not frame dependent) and the state of affairs at an event is what it is and can neither cease to exist, be overwritten, or otherwise change.

sleep paralysis is an aspect that affects consciousness, and emergence is an aspect of consciousness, so there are lot's of valid side paths on a thread titled emergent.

It affects my consciousness in the sense of the definition "conscious vs unconscious, or awake/asleep". I suppose that waking up in the morning qualifies as consciousness emerging, but I didn't think that's what you meant by the thread title.

No idea what you're talking about. I made no mention of perceptions, and I have no idea what an 'overwritable event' might be. — noAxioms

All of what is posted on TPF, is based on the perceptions of those doing the posting or/and the perceptions of those they cite. What I describe as a worldline is quite easy to follow.
The path an object takes from its beginning to its end can be called a worldline.
So, basically any path though spacetime is a worldline, and many objects can take the same path.
You can overwrite the content of any storage media. Similarly, any perception that information is recorded on the fabric of spacetime itself, like a series of photographs, is fanciful.
Worldlines are useful mathematical notions, nothing more. Stating that they don't cease to exist, is like saying spacetime will not cease to exist, it's a very trivial observation, and as I suggested, many objects pass the same points in space, so do they all get recorded/memorialised on top of each other (overwritten or memorialised in layers?)

All this stuff is covered in the notion of Minkowski space

It affects my consciousness in the sense of the definition "conscious vs unconscious, or awake/asleep". I suppose that waking up in the morning qualifies as consciousness emerging, but I didn't think that's what you meant by the thread title. — noAxioms

My OP describes particular questions about what is emergent in humans and due to human presence and activity in the universe but the thread title is much wider than the OP, imo.

What I describe as a worldline ... — universeness

Ive been trying to figure out if what you describe as a worldline is the same thing that say Minkowski would call a worldline.

The path an object takes [through spacetime] from its beginning to its end can be called a worldline.

Yes, with my addition inserted.

So, basically any path though spacetime is a worldline, and many objects can take the same path.

Maybe a pair of photons can do this, but I can't think of anything with proper mass that can. It would require the two objects to be at the same place at the same time. So no overwrites.

An object is present at every event on its worldline. It doesn't occupy just one location like a path through space. Yes, with a path through space, one can move to a different location and a different object can be at the location where you no longer are, but that doesn't work with worldlines. It is impossible (by definition) for an object not to be present anywhere on its worldline, hence its existence in spacetime.

and as I suggested, many objects pass the same points in space

Yes, but Minkowski was not talking about points in space when describing worldlines.
BTW, he didn't invent worldlines. They've been around since the block universe had been proposed centuries earlier. Minkowski just changed the mathematics from essentially Euclidean transformations to Lorentz transformations. Euclidean coordinates measure the distance between events as √(t²+x²+y²+z²) while Minkowski coordinates measure the interval between events as √(t²-x²-y²-z²) .
The old Euclidean mathematics (used also by Newton) also did not have a notion of this 'overwrite'. An event is objective, and the state of affairs at that event is exactly one state, regardless of what goes on elsewhere in the spacetime.

All this stuff is covered in the notion of Minkowski space

Yes, but your description of Minkowskian spacetime in incorrect. You seem to be mixing 'space' and 'spacetime'. The state of a location in space changes over time, but an event in spacetime includes a time coordinate, and thus any time after that is a different event, not an overwrite of the first event in question.

Minkowski coordinates measure the interval between events as √(t²-x²-y²-z²) . — noAxioms

c=1?

You seem to be mixing 'space' and 'spacetime'. — noAxioms

In spacetime, there is no separation of space and time, so you cannot pull 'space' or 'time' out of the concept, 'spacetime.'

When you overwrite memory locations on a DVD, it will happen at a different time, to when the previous data was placed there. The older data no longer exists in those locations, it has been overwritten, yes? Why would real space locations act any differently?
I put a carton of milk in my fridge and that location becomes part of it's worldline, yes? It seems to me that you are simply saying, that when I throw the carton in the bin, the space it occupied in the fridge, still exists, and by making such a trivial observation, you say worldlines never cease to exist.
To me, that's like saying spacetime will never cease to exist. Well, it may oscillate between being in a state of singularity and expansion, eternally, but so what? The concept of worldlines, remains nothing more than convenient mathematical modelling. I think you are blurring the lines between the notion of a worldline(spacetime) and that which might occupy it, at any instant of time.
I use the term 'overwrite,' to indicate, that the suggestion that space 'memorialises' every event that has ever occupied spacetime coordinates, is fanciful.
When we look at a star, we know that image no longer exists. When I look at any object around me, I know that snapshot no longer exists, as quantum fluctuations in that space, will alter it's state in some undetectable way I cannot describe, within a planck time duration. But again, to me, that is also a very trivial suggestion. The distance between every dimensionless 3 coordinates (x, y, z,) will also have expanded, during a planck time duration, creating more dimensionless members of the set of all dimensionless (x, y, z) coordinates (points).

Minkowski coordinates measure the interval between events as
√() .
— noAxioms

c=1? — jgill

Thanks for pointing that out, since what I quoted was the normalized version. The square root doesn't really belong there either. The less normalized version is:
s² = (ct)² - x² - y² - z²

When you overwrite memory locations on a DVD, it will happen at a different time, to when the previous data was placed there. — universeness

That's right. Imagine the DVD is a digital copy of your wedding video made in 2005 and overwritten by a spongebob episode by your kids in 2020. So given that the existence of the '0' on a certain spot has a different time coordinate (events from 2005 to 2020) than when it has the 1 on it (2020+). Since those events have different time coordinates, none of them overlap and no event was overwritten.

The older data no longer exists in those locations, it has been overwritten, yes?

No. The wedding video still exists from 2005 to 2020. That 15 year worldline cannot be overwritten. Mind you, there are movies depicting such an overwrite where Marty McFly overwrites his loser family with a less loser one, except for himself. That's an example of overwriting of events, but it's fiction and physically impossible.

Why would real space locations act any differently?

I'm talking about spacetime locations (events), not spatial location.

I put a carton of milk in my fridge and that location becomes part of it's worldline, yes?

No. Points in spacetime are events, not locations. The difference is 4 coordinates for an event vs 3 coordinates for a location.

It seems to me that you are simply saying, that when I throw the carton in the bin, the space it occupied in the fridge, still exists, and by making such a trivial observation, you say worldlines never cease to exist.

No, I'm saying that you were present at your birth, and nobody else can ever be present at your birth, that is, to be exactly were you were and not just absurdly close by like presumably your mother. Some other person can be present at that spatial location (like the cleaning guy 30 minutes later), but that's a different event with different coordinates, not an overwrite of your birth event which has an earlier time coordinate.

To me, that's like saying spacetime will never cease to exist.

Spacetime isn't contained by time, so it would be meaningless to talk about it coming into or going out of existence. Spacetime contains time, and there isn't a special moment that is the present (presentism). Einstein's (and Minkowski's) theories do not posit such a thing. Lorentz did, but a generalized theory of a universe contained by time was never published until this century. Spacetime is denied in it, as are black holes and the big bang, all replaced by other things with similar properties, testable only with fatal tests.

So no, if time and space are just different dimensions to be treated equally, then just like other places don't cease to exist relative to what you consider to be 'here', other times don't cease to exist relative to what you consider to be 'now'. So absent presentism, at no time in history do other times not exist. If only one time existed, that would be presentism.

I use the term 'overwrite,' to indicate, that the suggestion that space 'memorialises' every event that has ever occupied spacetime coordinates, is fanciful.

Events don't occupy coordinates. Events are objective: the state of affairs at an event is the same regardless of frame choice or point of view. The coordinates assigned to that event however are entirely abstract and dependent on the coordinate system of choice. So I find it backwards to assign events to coordinates rather than the other way around.

When we look at a star, we know that image no longer exists.

True only under presentism. Relativity theory isn't a presentist theory. Strictly speaking, the image very much does exist since you're viewing it. But a presentist would say that the star (or your friend in the next seat for that matter) is no longer in the state that you perceive.

I appreciate the distinction you are making, based on the time dimension, being the linear variable, that means every event that happens at a particular set of x, y, z coordinates can be placed serially next to each other, on a moment to moment timeline, and I accept the validity of that model.
Many people do however argue against all current models of linear time. Carlo Rovelli being for me, the most interesting scientists who does so.
I remain conflicted, that in any REAL sense, past events STILL exist. I remain unconvinced on that one, for now.

Project: Black Box

Re: Large language models (i.e. neural networks which are self-learning machines) which also "hallucinate". :yikes:



@universeness @Tom Storm @Wayfarer

Another good video. Demis Hassabis merely repeated what he has said about AI developments at Deep Mind in other video's on the topic. BARD seems to fit into the 'gollum class' of AI, currently being slowly introduced. This is discussed further in the OP I posted, based on the Tristan Harris and Asa Raskin video.

In this video, it seemed to me, that the main participants were suggesting that current AI developments and a future AGI, would be a benefit, overall, to the human race.
The main warning seemed to be that we needed to introduce the current developments, very carefully and slowly, establishing strong protections against any negative affects before taking another step.
I am becoming more and more convinced that there will be an AI 'struggle,' coming soon or already here, and it will pose a similar threat (as Tristian and Asa compared it to) to humans, as nuclear weapons did and still do (perhaps even a greater threat.) But, I remain hopeful that we will maintain/acieve enough control/influence etc, so that we will survive it's negative affects, and we will eventually 'merge' with it, without the result being a 'post human' existence, as you have previously predicted.

I don't see how we could "merge with" AGI —> ASI —> ??? and not be(come) "posthuman" – another species completely (e.g. nano sapiens). Are butterflies just 'winged caterpillars' after the chrysalis?

Anyway, back to the present, I just came across this article

https://philosophynow.org/issues/155/Whats_Stopping_Us_Achieving_Artificial_General_Intelligence

and I'm reading it now. Might be worth discussing ..

I don't see how we could "merge with" AGI —> ASI —> ??? and not be(come) "posthuman" – another species completely (e.g. nano sapiens). Are butterflies just 'winged caterpillars' after the chrysalis? — 180 Proof

We have the issue of gradation, and the concept of 'critical mass/turning point' etc.

This is an old discussion that I have been having with folks, since I first asked a classroom of students:
Would you surrender your pinky, If I offered you a replacement, which could do everything your current pinky does plus a few new functions and abilities?
Would you still be you, if you became one of the advanced pinky people?
How disadvantaged would you be, if you decided not to become one of the advanced pinky people?

I am sure you can easily predict where the discussion normally goes.
At some point, many people will pull out of the deal!
For some it's at stage 1, the pinky offer. For others it's arms and legs, for some it's the heart, for some it's the 'only your brain is left' stage.

It also depends on what new longevity and functionality is offered.
Many are attracted to, If you accept these changes you can:
Live to ....... hundred or ..... thousand years old.
You can live underwater or in space, without a spacesuit.
You can speak any language, including animal languages..... etc
The list of offers is only limited by the questioners imagineering ability.

The question quickly becomes, what is the critical point, such that if your 'merging,' moves beyond it, you are no longer human?
You are not the same you that you were when you were a teenager, but you are still you, and you are still human, so, considering such concepts as the 7 stages of man, etc. What you might consider post human, others may consider 'advanced/augmented human.'
Of course no human elements present, certainly would be 'post human,' but there are many other 'potential gradations,' of human. Do you not agree?

I will have a look at the article you linked to soon.

I think you're hung up on semantics. Besides, are humans merely just a gradation of – "advanced / augmented" – eukaryotes? or "advanced / augmented" fish? 'Human intellect instantiated on a planck-scale (entangled) synthetic substrate' doesn't seem like a merely "advanced / augmented human" prospect to me.

Not merely, just upgraded eukaryotes, no. But I expect that the results of combining upgraded genetic material, will produce as many surprising results as evolution via natural selection has.
There is another 'player,' in the game, still in it's infancy. Biological computing, combined with genetic engineering may make great advances in the future, especially with AI's help.

Based on the article you cited, I think:
four possible techno-umwelts, or areas of perception for a machine:
1) Verbal virtual;
2) Non-verbal virtual;
3) Verbal physical; and
4) Non-verbal physical.

The versatility that marks general or comprehensive intelligence, that is, AGI, would only be possible when the machine freely operates in all four of these techno-umwelts.

and

Only then could artificial intelligence become truly multimodal – meaning, it will be able to solve a wide range of possible tasks and comprehensively communicate with a human.

The idea of the combination of techno-umwelts thus gives us the opportunity to propose a new definition of AGI:

Artificial general intelligence is the ability of a robot (a machine with sense-think-act capability) to learn and act jointly with a person or autonomously in any techno-umwelt (but potentially better than a specialist in this field), achieving the goals set in all four techno-umwelts, while limiting the resources consumed by the robot.

Seems to be a valid and more detailed definition of an AGI than Wiki's:
An artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical intelligent agent which can understand or learn any intellectual task that human beings or other animals can. AGI has also been defined alternatively as an autonomous system that surpasses human capabilities at the majority of economically valuable work.

I also share some common ground, with the last paragraph of the article:
On the one hand, we are beginning to ‘dissolve’ into the technologies and virtual worlds surrounding us, blurring the concept of ‘human’. On the other hand, as computers explore new areas of activity, be it chess or machine translation or whatever else, those areas are no longer exclusive to humans. Perhaps humans are the final frontier that the machine cannot yet overcome.

I think you're hung up on semantics. — 180 Proof

I think definitions do absolutely matter in the 'observer reference frame' sense, but the notion of 'future' and 'change/progress' makes them, ultimately fluidic. What it is to be human, can change, and still maintain some of the fundamentals. I just don't see why we have to insist on a post' or 'after' human definition. I told you previously, I preferred neo/nova sapien, to your nano sapien.
I also prefer my more optimistic view of the future of humans to your more pessimistic one. :roll:
I think you secretly hope I am correct, even though you think the preponderance of the evidence available, convinces you that your more pessimistic viewpoint is correct.

o.o

Biological computing, combined with genetic engineering may make great advances in the future, especially with AI's help. — universeness

Until they can perceive time, i.e. they develop a temporal mind, they're stuck with a built-in clock calibrated to coincide with the time zones. Math and/or computing is non-temporal. This is the sad reality.
I'm presuming that by "advances", you mean they become humans. If not, I stand corrected.

Math and/or computing is non-temporal — L'éléphant

What do you mean? A computer does what it does IN time. Anything mathematical is an event that happens in time. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the aspect of 'temporal,' you are referencing.

I'm presuming that by "advances", you mean they become humans. If not, I stand corrected. — L'éléphant

No, by progress, I refer to two possible emergents, as a result of the current path of biological computing.
1 The ability of biological computing to enhance and augment human lifespan and ability.
2. The possibility of a system, which is not completely formed of non-organic components, (but also not cyborg,) becoming self-aware/conscious/sentient.

Until they can perceive time, — L'éléphant

Humans are still debating what time is, so I can't comment on how a future orga/mecha sentient might perceive time. They will face the same concepts we do, relative time, individual time, proper time etc.

Until they can perceive time, i.e. they develop a temporal mind — L'éléphant

Expound on this. I've no idea what you mean by "perceive time" or "temporal mind".

... becoming self-aware/conscious/sentient. — universeness

I think "self-awareness" (i.e. real-time self-modeling) has to be built into an artificial system, it's not an emergent (i.e. "becoming") property or capability – and isn't necessary for intelligent performance (e.g. large language models). Why do you assume machines (or synthetic organisms) can, in effect, "wake-up sentient"?

Why do you assume machines (or synthetic organisms) can, in effect, "wake-up sentient"? — 180 Proof

Mainly because of the 'critical mass' or 'tipping point' concept found in nature. I think this is also found in various human illnesses. Physically we have the 'locked in syndrome,' or complete physical paralysis and the various coma style states of which some are referred to as vegetative.

From your linked article, we have:
"This concept comprises experiences of ownership, of first person perspective, and of a long-term unity of beliefs and attitudes. These features are instantiated in the prefrontal cortex."
This suggests to me that the functionality of the pre-frontal cortex is vital to what we would describe as the 'first person perspective.'

In this article, Metzinger (who I am unfamiliar with), to me, is describing the required 'stabilities,' and component contributing parts that result in the model of self (system), that he is describing. I see the 'self' he is describing as an emergence, in that it manifests as a combinatorial of the sub-systems involved. I use the concept of 'more than the sum of the sub-systems,' or fundamental quanta involved, to account for the more unusual features of self.
For example, I may (as a self,) become attracted to a person or an object or an idea, for reasons that even I find very hard to fully explain. That seems to me, to be caused by something more 'bizarre'/'complicated'/nuanced etc than everything a car or my laptop does, due to the combination of its parts and fundamental quanta.
Perhaps you are referencing 'emergent' and 'emergence,' differently than I, or/and perhaps under some strict philosophical or scientific rule, I am not employing the concept of emergence in a logically sound way. I am willing to be 'better tuned' on this point, if the reasoning I am employing here, requires it.

This is an excellent point. I think it's easy to miss that a huge amount of the brain's "floating point operations per second," or their rough biological equivalent, are devoted entirely to helping a human being avoid tripping over as they walk, keeping the heart and lungs properly synced up, constantly searching incoming sensory streams for threats, motivating a person to go eat, use the bathroom, or talk to their attractive coworker, etc.

It's not even just that humans need to eat, drink, etc., producing down time, it's that a large part of the computation power we have access to, likely a solid majority, is used to maintain homeostasis or so adapted to survival functions that it is hard to keep task oriented.

That said, I think it's also possible that we vastly underestimate the advantages of biological systems' use of dynamic parallel processing and have over emphasized the role of action potentials alone in cognition. I read a book called "The Other Brain," on glial cells a while back and it was remarkable how much this under appreciated set of cells effects everything the brain does. The actual workings of neurotransmitters are incredibly complex and most neural networks reduce this to just "inhibitory value" or "excitation," which we may learn misses a lot more than we thought through AGI experiments.

I'm not that pessimistic, but if AGI proves very far away, I'd wager it is because our shot in the dark attempts to describe biological computing power in terms of our digital computers was massively off the mark due to only focusing on "number of nerve cell firing." There are a lot of signals that change cell metabolism, feed back loops involving hormones to NTs and back, places where a molecule at one binding site subtlety changes the shape of another which in turn radically affects signaling, etc. It would take FAR more information to encode all that, and so if that stuff ends up being essential instead of merely a means to get neurons depolarizing, computation in the brain could involve orders of magnitude more processing power to replicate, let alone the jump if some sort of quantum search optimization akin to photosynthesis shows up in a way that meaningfully effects things.

E.g., https://news.mit.edu/2022/neural-networks-brain-function-1102

But maybe the things we want AGI to do don't depend on this stuff (if it is essential)? That seems distinctly possible.

are devoted entirely to helping a human being avoid tripping over as they walk, keeping the heart and lungs properly synced up, constantly searching incoming sensory streams for threats, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Such processes exist in the systems software of computers as well, start up and shut down routines, refreshing the contents of RAM space, port polling (around 30 times per second) for data input from connected peripherals like a touchscreen or a keyboard. Are such processes also existent in say, trees?
If so, do we consider such processes in humans, an aspect of human consciousness and If we do then must it not follow that we must label ANY such process in a computer or a tree, an aspect of consciousness?

No, I don't think so. It seems like you could be conscious even if your blood had to be circulated by a machine, your blood oxygenated by a machine, etc.

I wasn't really thinking in those terms. I was just thinking in terms of estimates of the total computational power of the human brain in the biological equivalent of floating point operations per second versus the amount of that computational power that can actually be allocated for doing things like planning and executing a Moon landing.

Intuitively, it seems like digital AI would have to allocate a lower share of its total computational resources towards non-relevant activities. I might be entirely wrong about that though.