"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague.
— Corvus

Then... why did you agree with it and say it was your point when Pez said it? — flannel jesus

I thought that was what you were saying. I never said that brain is connected to consciousness physically. It is first time I am reading it from your post.

Saying "the brain is connected to consciousness", which probably nearly everyone agrees with, is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from saying "consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" or whatever, which is what you said everyone knows. — flannel jesus

"The bran is connected to consciousness." sounds even more vague. What do you mean by the brain is connected to consciousness? What is it connected with? Is it connected with a piece of string or golden chain or rubber band? It sounds more obscure.

"consciousness arises from the brain" or "emerges from the brain" is some of the academic theories of Mind-Body topics in the cognitive science textbooks, and is a widely known claim.

Nobody would contradict this and the close connection between brain and consciousness. — Pez

Yes, that was my point against .

Nevertheless we would have to find the "ego-neuron" so to speak to locate the point in space where all this information transmitted by our nerves come together to generate our experience of a "personality". — Pez

This still sounds like a materialistic methodology.

And that is exactly the crux of Kant's argument, that materialism alone does not suffice to explain our experience. — Pez

I thought Kant doesn't make explicit comment on the mind, self or physical brain in CPR. He was only interested in propounding on how metaphysics is possible as a science explaining transcendental idealism.

That is nonsense, the word for truth goes back to Homer. — Lionino

The closest ancient Greek word for truth is "aletheia", which can be analysed etymologically a (negation) + lethe (concealment, forgetfulness, escape) = aletheia.
It doesn't quite reflect a word for truth, does it?

I put my point badly. I only wanted to say that dualists might find it somewhat problematic to say that the brain generates the mind - even if you expand it to the body creates the mind. Dualism may be less popular than it was, but it still has philosophical adherents. I have to acknowledge that fact even though I think they are mistaken. — Ludwig V

No problems mate. I do respect your honest acceptance on the situation instead of keep going on with the wrong points and spiralling and falling into the ad hominem exchange of posts like some other posters in the past. :nerd: :up:

It is a common sense that everyone knows that mind resides in the brain, when there is a popular expression in the ordinary language, when someone does or says something wrong, "He / She needs his/her head examined." :smirk: Denying that, and trying to make out as if there are bunch of folks out there who believes that mind comes from the belly buttons or some other parts of body sounded totally and utterly senseless. Even the ancient Greek sophists wouldn't be out of touch with the world in that degree. :rofl:

t may be that they need to relax and concentrate on how the system works. If you ask what part of the central heating system keeps the house warm, you'll find yourself endlessly searching. If you ask where the self is that moves the car, you may discard some parts, but you'll never narrow it down to one part. — Ludwig V

Yes, if you asked where the power generates from the motor cars, then we can say, from the engine. Cleary the moving force generates from the work of the engine. But that alone cannot drive a car. The engine will need all the other parts such as gears, steering wheels, clutches, accelerator, brakes housed in solid car body also attached with 4 good tyres for the car to drive.

Likewise consciousness generates from the physical brain, but it needs all the bodily organs properly connected to the brain via the neural networks in a healthy body, for it to function properly.

Kant's argument against materialism was, that we cannot find "unity" in the material world as matter as such is always divided or divisible. Our conscious experience on the other hand is basically "one", even in multiple personality. — Pez

Of course the physical brain itself won't be able to function without all the bodily parts and organs properly connected via the neural network. If you are going into multiple personality and conscious experience, then you are leaving the physical realm of mind i.e. the brain, and entering into the world of psychology and epistemology.

So where in the brain is it located? — Pez

That is the hard problem of mind-body issue. No one seems to know. The biologists and neurologists were suppose to find about it.

Mind is located in the brain is all they seem to be saying for the simple evidence that if you break your arm or leg, then you can still speak, see, think and feel i.e. you are still fully conscious. But if your brain was injured or hurt in some physical way, then you would lose the mental abilities above mentioned, or become unconscious immediately.

Attic Greek for Plato, Aristotle, etc? Yes. Hellenistic/Roman Greek for neo-Platonists and theologians? Not that much. — Lionino

I recall reading somewhere, that in Platonic era of ancient Greece, there was no Greek word for "truth". Is this correct?

I don't really get why AI has become a topic in this thread, when it wasn't even discussed in the presentation that the thread refers to, and when it is the perennial topic of discussion in numerous other threads. — Wayfarer

I recall Seth saying briefly in his presentation that human consciousness cannot be replicated in any form of AI or machine intelligence due to the fact that consciousness is a product of lived life with real experience in the world.

But as you said rightly, it is neither the main point of the OP, nor the Youtube presentations.

It just goes to show how easy it is to mistake "the people that I know" for "everyone". It happens all the time. One issue is whether the mind is located in time and space. Another is the nature of the relationship between mind and brain. Descartes believed that the mind interacts with the body through the pituitary gland. But he did not believe that the mind was generated from it. But see my reply to Pantagruel below. — Ludwig V

You're not familiar with Dualism? With the concept of souls? — flannel jesus

It has been said in the ordinary language manner to indicate the most sensible educated modern folks. The modern dualists might believe mind and body are separate entity, but most of them would still believe the mind is generated from the physical brain. It is not the main point of the OP worthy to quibble about, because the OP is not a High-Order Logic topic. :nerd:

That post, as I said, makes it clear why AI will never be human. It does not touch on the topic of mediums other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. If our brains can do it, how do we know another medium can't. And if our brains can't, why even bring up that another medium, especially one that we are trying to use, can't? — Patterner

The medium was secondary consideration. The main consideration was human consciousness being property or character of lived life backed up by experience interacting with the other minds in the society and world, having gone through the educational system and also grounded on the millions of years of evolution.

Compare the human mind described above with AI just assembled somewhere in China with the electrical computer chips and parts, loaded with the knowledge expert software full of operational bugs which have to go through umpteen updates before getting close to half useful. Would you honestly believe AI will be same as human consciousness even after so many hundred years?

You seem to be mistaking consciousness with intelligence too. The two are not the same. A device can be more intelligent than the other device or agents in terms of only in some preset tasks, but it could be useless or dumb in other tasks. Being intelligent doesn't mean it is conscious, because consciousness can only arise from the living agents.

everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain.
— Corvus
I see that a lot of people have jumped on this. There's a lot of disagreement. But I agree that most people think that there is a close connection between the mind and the brain. But there is a good deal less agreement about what that connection is. It is a hard problem indeed. — Ludwig V

I was shocked to read the post by claiming that there are still many folks who believe minds are not generated from physical brains. If mind is not in brain, where would it be?

That does not address the possibility of a medium other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. if we are able to with our medium, what reason is there to believe it cannot be done within another medium? — Patterner

My previous post here should cover answering your question. If you could read it again, and find any problems, please let me know. Thanks.

You make it clear why AI will never be human. — Patterner

:nerd:

Sure, I am not into the exact statistic data how many percentage of folks in the world or TPF believe in the fact that mind generates from physical brain. But I am certain that majority of them believe that it generates from physical brain. If not, then they would change their beliefs sometime in the future. Sometime in the past or future or now somewhere in the world that everyone believed, believes or will believe that mind generates from physical brain.

Beliefs are bound to change through time and other factors. It can be every, most or a lot whatever ... :D Anyhow that goes to show that humans don't agree even on the point where minds emanate from. But I am sure the majority would believe it is in the brain.

I certainly think that, but I don't think EVERYONE knows it. Many many many many people do not agree that the mind emerges from the brain. — flannel jesus

In ancient times, they believed mind is in your heart, and your breath is your soul, suppose.

I take the point about states of consciousness at the analytic or metaphysical level except that I don't have a clear grasp about what those things mean. My view is that attributions of "internal" states, of belief/knowledge, desires and intentions is attributed by interpreting a given action in context of other actions and responses. — Ludwig V

The most intriguing problem with consciousness is that everyone knows the mind emerges from the physical brain, but no one seems to know how the physical brain generates non-physical minds. This is called the "hard problem" in philosophy of mind.

Biologists, and neurologist have been trying to solve the problem, but so far what they have been saying is that at certain location of the brain certain mental events seem to be causally linked. But that still doesn't explain what mind is in detail or any realistic sense. It is like saying the rain comes down from the sky. Everyone knows that. Mind is linked to the physical brain.

Hence, it would't be much point going into the physical and biological details of brains, because mind will not show up in there.

But philosophically, we can describe the aspects of mind via looking into linguistic, behavioural and rational reasoning capabilities of the conscious beings in metaphysical logical and psychological level.

For the moment, yes. The question is whether or not it is possible for them to do more. Our physical brains operate under physical laws. If we can do anything beyond what those laws demand and limit us too, what reason is there that to think AI cannot do anything beyond what their laws demand and limit them to? — Patterner

Human consciousness has been formed via life long lived experience. It has the biological foundation of course, but also educational, societal and evolutional backgrounds.

AI intelligence is made up on the spot with the electric parts, and loaded with human designed software system and pre-stored custom database. The two cannot be possibly regarded equal. AI wouldn't have a clue or idea on some of the mental states formed from the experiences humans have gone through while having been living in the societies interacting with the other humans and nature. And each and every human beings' mental states would be unique and special to the individuals due to difference in the genetic makeup in the brains as well as unique personal experiences they have gone through.

This fact won't change no matter how far future you are talking about unless you can give births to the biological AI machines yourself, and bring them up from the newborns feeding with milk and sending them to the kindergartens and primary schools, middle and high schools and college and universities. But IF you could have done this, and brought up some AI machines biologically and humanly, then are they AI machines at all? Were you talking about a human whose name happen to be AI, or was it 100% machine AIs? In fact I used to know a Japanese woman called Ai. Ai was a 100% human female.

In the logic thread I proposed "logos" for the logic-like function of the world. I wonder what a good term would be for "the apparently mathematical in nature?" Quantos? Mathematicularity? Máthēma? Quanticularity? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are there anything more than matter and motion in the universe?

I wish people into scholastic philosophy and theology were obliged to study Modern Greek so they realise how silly they sound, and how the usage of foreign words does not grant them mystique. — Lionino

Is Modern Greek a lot different from Ancient Greek? It would be advantageous to know Ancient Greek for reading philosophy.

And, to tie it back to the OP, math is one of those things, restricted to human Consciousness and, therefore, only "real" insofar as constructed and perceived. — ENOAH

Agreed. Human consciousness applies math to all the objects in the universe, but some folks think that math is embedded in the universe.

Then who is watching you when you are asleep. Does that mean you don't exist when you are asleep. — Abhiram

According to Hume, idea of self doesn't exist. What did Berkeley say about SELF?
But the real question here was, how do you know the existence of the being which,

have existence in this physical world but all encompassing physical reality , space, time and thought with it. Like an intertwined whole with several distinguishable parts which cannot be separated — Abhiram

??

Oh no. Being is , to be, to exist. You cannot see it you could experience it yourself. It is subjective after all. It is you lived in experience. — Abhiram

Berkeley said "to exist is to be perceived." No perception means no existence at all.

Being for me is to be in this world to have existence in this physical world but all encompassing physical reality , space, time and thought with it. Like an intertwined whole with several distinguishable parts which cannot be separated — Abhiram

What does it look like? Have you seen it personally in real life or even in your dreams?

If there is a being — Abhiram

What could that being possibly be?

If there were no humans on the earth, then you will see no math on the earth or anywhere in the universe.

Yes, the Youtube videos were interesting in that the presenters were all heretic types contrasting from the traditional science perspective in their presentations. It is also interesting to hear that you had come across the book by Sheldrake in the 80s via the acquaintance of your father in the 80s.

All 3 of them seem to believe in the claims that the human mind can do more than what is expected in the daily life of the ordinary folks, and also what the brain can perform as the biological and neurological science descriptions and specification of the physical organ which is to operate in the realm of the physical cause and effect principles, and neurobiological knowledge.

Seth's story on the case that when some part of the brain had been removed by surgical operations due to the patient's illness, impairing visual perception of the patient in a drastic way, but the patient recovers the lost sight to some degree later in his life proves that mind is more than just the physical brain. This point had been further supported by another speaker in his presentation demonstrating the scientific experiments he conducted through the long periods of time in his career as a scientist.

Luhrman's stories about how people perceive their Gods as real by praying and speaking seem to suggest the human brain sees more than what is visible, and could it be one of the signs of hallucinating character of the mind in perception of the world?

Sheldrake's story on human minds noticing the glares of the other folks even when not seeing them directly is definitely a common experience by many ordinary people, and I am sure it is definitely one of the signs of the human consciousness that extends beyond the brain. But as you indicated it is difficult to prove with the scientific experiments and evidence. But it still is an interesting and compelling point for the big picture of the mind extending over the physical brain.

All these stories seem to prove that human mind is different from that of the machine intelligence and AI mind in that, the human minds extends beyond what is expected and specified in the sciences i.e. recovering the mental operations even when the part of the brain is removed by the surgical operation, seeing and perceiving abstract religious existence when they are invisible to the other most ordinary people, and noticing perceptual glares of others directed at them when not directly faced to the glares. These aspects of human mind operations would be something that are impossible for any machine or AI intelligence to perform or to be expected ever under all the similar circumstances.

AI can only perform and execute what had been programmed by humans. They are incapable of doing anything beyond that.

Yes. Further information can be very helpful. For example, the wider context is often crucial. In addition, information about the physiological state of the subject. — Ludwig V

Why do you need information about the physiological state of the subject? Unless you are a medical doctor or neurologist, it seems to be a remote area which wouldn't reveal a lot in terms of one's state of consciousness in analytic and metaphysical level.

That also shows up in the fact that, faced with the new AIs, we take into account the internal workings of the machinery. — Ludwig V

Again as above, in what sense account of the internal workings of the machinery tell us about the nature of the AI consciousness?

Scrutinizing the machines that we have is not going to get us very far, but it seems to me that we can get some clues from the half-way houses. — Ludwig V

You seem to have answered the questions above just right after your posts asking for the physical states and internal workings of the conscious beings. You seem to be in agreement that it is not necessary or relevant to analytical, metaphysical or epistemological level. Is it correct?

Anil Seth says he's 'entirely comfortable' with 'the mind extending beyond the brain', holding up his iPhone to make the point, one I agree with. Overall, I liked Seth's presentation, although I would question his claim that 'the mystery of life' has been 'solved' due to our better understanding of organic biochemistry. — Wayfarer

Agreed. Good point. The mystery of life still remains, so does mind as a property of life.

Re Sheldrake, I have 'The Science Delusion' and 'Presence of the Past'. I'm probably more open to Sheldrake than many but I'm afraid most of what he has to say won't change any minds, I suspect. I will review a bit more of the Q&A later. — Wayfarer

Fair enough. I found Sheldrake's points interesting too, although they lack evidence in the arguments.

What is the evidence of an "I" period? Let alone an I that is, and is a Being within the being. I only is in Language. My Body provides obvious evidence of its own Reality, without the need of a Fictional construction, a nevessary mechanism in Grammar and thus Mind. That,
i.e. the human animal, ought to have been the given; the pre-reflective, a priori, noumenal, etc. Truth. Not our ideas about it. If "I" isn't the so called being requiring evidence then why is it that "I" was the Subject of Descartes inquiry. And where did he locate the "I" ? In thinking. And what structures that thinking? Language including its laws and dynamics such as grammar/logic, meaning, difference, Dialectic, convention and belief. — ENOAH

Sure your body predates your thoughts and language, grammar, meanings and all the rest of it. But as your body grew up and matured, your thoughts, language, grammar, meanings, perceptions and emotions all grew and matured together with our body.  Your body didn't just put together with the various electrical modules and parts like the AI.  Or your body was not thrown into the world from the sky one Sunday afternoon from nowhere, I presume.

When Descartes found his "I", he wasn't particularly looking for his "I" in the pile of worldly objects around him.  It was his "I" which he could find as the only assuring object which warranted certainty of existence.   

But you are correct in saying that "I" is not the body.  It is a linguistic concept, which was deducted from the thought.  But perhaps Descartes was looking for logical certainty on which he could embark on further reasoning into the world, mind and God.  It is good that at least Descartes found his "I" even if in the language via deduction and doubts.

Hume had no chance.  He couldn't see his own "I" no matter where he looked, there was no matching impressions or ideas of "Self".  Hume was looking for his "I" in perceptual observation, which forced him to conclude that there is no such a thing as "I".

Therefore it makes sense the concept of "I" is a contingent term in a perceptual and logical sense even if no one doubts he or she is his and her "I".  The "I" is not exactly a verified concept as such.

But what I think on the point is that, your language, thoughts, sensations, emotions, meanings are part of your mind.  They are the evidence of the existence and operations of your mind and consciousness.  Without those actions and expressions, we cannot verify the existence of mind at all.  But where does one's mind reside apart from one's living body?  Shouldn't we then conclude that your language and thoughts and meanings are a true reflection of your body? When you say "I am", you know exactly who the "I" is, and you cannot make mistake telling the "I" for anyone else, but you. Wouldn't you agree?

Apology once again for the clearly simplistic reply to your complex points on a complex matter which should take up more mental preparation/organization and space than can justify in this communal context. — ENOAH

Well the above discussion was an interesting point, and I am grateful for your interesting points and post. We all have limited time even in our daily routines and life, hence we tend to be in a position where we cannot spend more time to think and elaborate more detail for the topics which deserve the time and detail of the arguments and explanations. But how fortunate for us even to be able to have the brief moments to be able to read and think on these compelling points in philosophy, and exchange our opinions and keep on learning. :)

For one its binary programming. It has different limitations and freedoms from neurological thinking. You can scale an AI to use far more energy than one human brain, as well as transfer information from one hardware station to another. — Philosophim

So how do you know AI which has binary codes in its core thinks? Is it not the case of AI operates according to the instruction of the binary code what to execute next after checking the conditions?
What is the ground for the claim that AI also thinks as human mind does?

Right, that's its own sound and feel. Is your brain the same as your friend's brain? No. You're each different people playing your own version of music or 'mind'. — Philosophim

I am not sure if brain states of different individuals can be checked and verified as either exactly the same, or slightly different or totally different. In what sense would a brain different from the other brain?
Some mental events and operations of different people can be similar, but again could it be exactly the same? How can you claim that? Under what sense and point are they same or different?

And I am not sure if it is a coherent analogy to say that mind is something that can be played on musical instruments. Mind observes the external worlds, reflects and thinks, imagines, decides, desires, knows that, and knows how ... etc etc.

Mind is far more complicated entity which cannot be simply played in an instrument. The musician's mind knows how to play musical instruments, but mind cannot be played by an instrument either logically or literally or in reality.

You may be confusing 'sight' by the way. Sight is always a construction of the brain. Did you know that when light enters your eyes the image is upside down? The brain corrects all of that. Again, do not study philosophy to learn about the mind. Study modern day neuroscience. Anyone who doesn't is going to be ignorant. — Philosophim

Neuroscience is definitely a good tool to describe mind in certain perspectives i.e. biological and neurological point of view, and telling how some visual perception works in biological and physical way. But it is not the whole story. There are parts of mind, to which neurology is not able to give coherent explanation. For example, what is concept? How does brain generate concepts? What are the nature of ideas people have in their minds in neurological terms? Why some people prefer ice cream to tomatoes?

Seth in the youtube video presentation in the OP is a neurologist, and that is what he was saying. There are many things in mental events and operations that biology and neurology cannot explain. Mind could be a property of living life, which has been matured since birth of one's life on this earth biologically, neurologically and mentally, which also has the root of hundreds thousands years of human evolution.

It can’t be vastly different, because individuals are not solipsisms. Embodied and phenomenological interpretations consider the embeddedness of the embodied subject in a world of linguistic cultural practices to be of fundamental importance to the understanding of behavior. — Joshs

Some folks are solipsistic, and some are die-hard realists. Everyone is different. Some are left and some are right. Some are neutral. Some like poetry, some like mathematics, and some science, and some like them all.

Having the same language and culture doesn't warrant the individuals have the same mind frame.
But more importantly, it doesn't explain what mind is, and how it sometimes operates in certain ways under the circumstances.

When asked, "ice-cream?" Some say "vanilla please", some say "chocolate", and some say "I hate ice cream, give me a beer."

When asked "hobbies?" Some say, football, some say running, some say reading, some say cooking ... They are all different from person to person. You may find some folks share the same ideas, feelings and preferences on certain things and situations, but you will never find 100% identical individuals in the whole world. So what does it prove about the under the same cultural and linguistic world and embodiment of bodies to minds?

It describes how some people behave in some situations, but it seems to be saying not much on what mind is, and why it operates the way it does.

Sense always co-implies body, and subjectivity belongs to intersubjectivity. Being in the world for Merleau-Ponty is occupying a position within a shared gestalt (the same world for everyone). I am primordially situated in an intersubjective world. — Joshs

Of course everyone is in their own body, and they think they are, or get told they are in an intersubjective world. But again everyone is different in the way they think, feel and behave in some sense.

It is not like the machines, which operate in the same way and manner, in the sense that if you have a computer with the same spec. of the processors, the same size of RAM and Hard Disks and the same application software running. If you had millions of identical computers running all over the world, then no matter what countries, what cities and in what location they were running, they would run exactly the same speed, same screens, and the same performance.

If a theory is only true in some cases, but not others, then is it an objective theory?

The concept of being the intersubjective world could be a myth as well. Because you will find a vast amount of folks living in the modern world complaining about being cut off from society, alienated and not able to communicate with anyone.

You read about the teenagers in Japan, who get bullied in schools and workplaces, and they often lock themselves up in their room just spending the whole life playing computer games. Here again, we see the variety of different lifestyles depending on the social and individual situations. Not everyone in the world seems to feel or believe that they are primordially in an intersubjective world interacting with the other people and the environment they are in.

It explains them differently than a psychoanalytic model of the unconscious.

“From the point of view of a phenomenology of the lived body, the unconscious is not an intrapsychic reality residing in the depths "below consciousness". Rather, it surrounds and permeates conscious life, just as in picture puzzles the figure hidden in the background surrounds the foreground, and just as the lived body conceals itself while functioning. Unconscious fixations are like certain restrictions in a person's space of potentialities produced by an implicit but ever-present past which declines to take part in the continuing progress of life. (Thomas Fuchs) — Joshs

This is an interesting account on unconscious, which can be a topic of its own. Although it sounds like a contradictory at prima facie encounter. It sounds a categorical mistake to presume that unconscious can surround and permeates conscious life as if unconscious is some sort of physical blanket or cape which drapes around the conscious life. But it could have further elaboration and arguments with the real life cases which demonstrates that unconscious is not the hidden psychic reality deep in the mind.

I've tried to clarify exactly where are disagreements lie, and what we seem to agree about. One source of trouble is that you seem to hold what I think of as the traditional view of other minds. — Ludwig V

I was just pointing out logical gaps in your arguments. Not prejudging your points at all. :)

I couldn't identify it. If you could point me in the right direction, I would be grateful. — Ludwig V

With the logical discourse, we are hoping to reach some conclusions or agreements on the topic. I don't presume anyone's point is wrong or right. All points are more plausible or less plausible.

On the other hand, you seem to allow some level of knowledge of other minds when you say "Mental events can only be construed with the actions of the agents and languages they speak by the other minds". It is striking that you use the word "construe" which suggests to me a process of interpretation rather that inference from evidence to conclusion. — Ludwig V

Yes, I meant "construe" to mean interpretation for other people's minds. I feel it is the right way of description, because there are many cases that we cannot have clear and obvious unequivocal signs and evidences in real life human to human communications. Only clear signs and evidence for your perception on other minds are language and actions, but due to the complexity of human mind, the true intentions, desires and motives of humans can be hidden deep inside their subconscious or unconscious rendering into the state of mysteries even to the owner of the mind.

To reiterate the main point, we can only interpret the contents of other minds with the overt expressions such as language and actions they exhibit in the communication. Inference can be made in more involving situations, if we are in a position to investigate further into the situations. In this case, you would be looking for more evidences and even psychological analysis in certain cases.

If Descarte's Real Self is an “I am,” a being within Being, unwittingly Fabricated and Fictional; and if—standing upon the shoulders of those, like Hegel, Husserl, and Heidegger, recognizing the Fiction of a being within yhe being, and resolving it with not a being within, — ENOAH

Why is it Fabricated and Fictional? What is the evidence for "I am" is a fiction? Are you not you are?

Perception, takes sensation and in imperceptible time displaces it with meaning. Not discovers Real meaning. Where does the meaning come from? We construct it out of available Signifiers stored in memory operating in accordance with an evolved set of Laws and Dynamics, following sometimes lightning speed dialectic, and settling at belief, also a mechanism of the Fictional structure seen by us as Truth. — ENOAH

If meanings are something that we construct ourselves from the signifiers stored in memory. and truths are a product of a belief and mechanism of the fictional structures, then how do we come to the common agreement on these values and properties. You say the memory operates in accordance with an evolved set of Laws and Dynamics, but that doesn't seem to be a warrant for the solid consistent foundation for any sort of rational and consistent universal principles, which tends to suggest the strong hint of possibility of the meanings and truths committed into unreliable relativity.

Here is an argument for why your brain does not ‘hallucinate’ your conscious reality.

…to perceive the world isn’t to hallucinate and get things right. To perceive is to explore the world with your sensing and moving body. — Joshs

The main problem with sensorimotor theory would be the fact that with the same input to the sense organs or sensibilities of different individuals, the behavioural and mental eventual output of the each individuals can be vastly different. And also the same behavioural output can be achieved by different sensorimotor inputs.

Another difficulty of the sensorimotor theory of mind would be, that there are many different factors which affects the state of mind. And it cannot explain most subconscious or unconscious mental events.

By the fact it is not the same material as a brain. — Philosophim

So, what different material is mind of AI? In what sense is mind of AI different from human mind?

You can play the same melody on different instruments, but it will have its own sound and feel. — Philosophim

I am not sure if this is a proper comparison. Mind has its own will, volition, intentions and desires as well as emotions, feelings, perceptions and reasonings. It is a totality of one's whole mental events and operations.

How do you play minds on different instrument? Is mind something that is clearly defined as a piece of music which has melodies and tunes? Does mind have the start and end like a piece of music?

We are more interested in finding out what is mind made of, if it is physical in its origin or something else in its origin? What is mind's scope and limitation? What is mind's capabilities? What can AI mind do where human minds cannot? and vice versa? Can mind see things beyond what is visible, hence extendable?

Based on overwhelmingly extant physical evidence, every mind(ing) is embodied in an ecologically situated, or conditioned, brain; other than subjective anecdotes (corroborated only in folk psychological / spiritual terms & customs), there is not any publicly demonstrable, contrary evidence of (e.g.) 'disembodied cognition' or 'nonphysical minds'. — 180 Proof

Your point sounds like mind is subjective in nature as well as objective in its capabilities, which I agree. But do you agree that mind can see things beyond what is visible?

Also, assuming 'mind-body duality' is incoherent for some reasons discussed in this old post ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/636391 — 180 Proof

This thread is not exactly about mind-body duality or dualism.

Is this the end of physicalism?
No. — 180 Proof

Why?

I fully believe that AI will have consciousness as well. Will it be the same as a human brain? Likely not. — Philosophim

How would AI consciousness be different from that of human consciousness?