AI voice is a dead thing talking

True, but it is proof that sometimes the brain does weird stuff that we cannot always rely on.

Sure, but it can generate a made up story and then convince itself it was real. That is all that is needed for a computation-model to explain your OOBEs.

I don't know about this "only life can dream". As far as we know, only life has been dreaming, but I don't see why that'd be a general rule. This isn't the first time we've made a machine do something that previously only life could do.

It seems to me, humans generate "something", and we have decided to call it a dream, I don't know why we couldn't do the same to a computer.

Certainly, there'd be less need for detailed explanations. I don't see why your position would be any more logical in that case though. The impression of an OOBE can happen to anyone, none of the arguments I have presented would be different if it was me who had the OOBE instead of you.

Some people have self-awareness in their dreams. You seem to be extrapolating for no reason again.

I agree that electric pianos sound different to acoustic ones, but I don't think that proves your point. Current AIs available to the public don't sound fully like humans, but that's not to say they never will be able to.

 

Your reply doesn't say much, and what it does state, it presents falsely. You are using the excuse of presenting your ideas in a philosophy forum, to purport your freedom from any obligation to provide rational justification, for anything you stipulate. The problem with even that argument, is that you do not restrict your claims, to philosophical matters. Your contentions, I have highlighted in red, do fit your argument: whether A.I. will have a "soul," and whether the "basis" for life, is spiritual, are both philosophical questions, which are not provable, nor disprovable. Note, however, I did not try to argue the counterpoint, of either of those.

What I was arguing was that you could not use these matters of your personal faith, to "prove" matters outside of pure philosophy, in the mundane world of fact; you say as much, yourself, that "in a philosophy forum, we can only discuss ideas...there is no way to 'prove' anything philosophical." Whether A. I. will be "conscious," or sentient, however, is precisely one of those mundane matters, for which we have developed gaging techniques that, albeit less than precisely, will allow us to determine, through fact, the answer to that question of consciousness-- no philosophy required.

So your saying that A.I. will not be conscious-- because you believe that consciousness comes from possessing a soul, and you further, do not believe an A.I. can ever have a soul-- is no different than you arguing that A. I. will never be conscious, "because God would never allow it." In both cases, the belief is irrelevant to the reality: it will (or won't) have consciousness, regardless of anyone's spiritual beliefs.

 

Artificial Intelligence, currently, does not exist. Therefore, either you are using the wrong verb tense, or you are talking about something other than true A.I. (which latter option, would make a lot more sense, out of your thread).

This quote adds credibility to the second possibility, I noted above, that you are misusing the term "A.I." Unless you are a time traveller, or have invented your own A.I., you do not "play with A.I.," at all. What you do play with is, indeed, just a simulation of consciousness. (While another view of this exists, it seems best, in this reply, for me to stick to the black & white concepts, as most in society, view them).

Might I recommend that you actually do just a tad bit of research, before you start a thread, about something which you seem to not understand, even, what it is? As I have already said, it is the scientific community, which largely accepts artificial intelligence, as inevitable.

But perhaps I am mistaken. The first time I really gave this any thought, was after watching a documentary of an array of individual scientists, being interviewed about the possibility. I will estimate that this was about a decade ago (but I must admit that I am not very good at gaging expanses of time, greater than a couple of years). At that time, there seemed roughly a 50 - 50 split. But it has been my impression that the consensus on the "pro" side, has been growing, ever since. If you are truly interested in this topic, the essay reviewed at this link, seems like it would be just the thing, you would want to read.

https://samples.freshessays.com/essay-on-artificial-intelligence.html

<SNIP>
The author’s goal in producing this book was to ascertain the rationale behind Artificial Intelligence. Why was it necessary to automate machines to think like humans? Additionally, he wanted to explore the science behind Artificial Intelligence (Jackson, 2019). In his book, he first recognizes the existence of two distinct groups of people: skeptics and people of faith. For skeptics, the concept of artificial intelligence is preposterous, comparable to the tooth fairy. For believers, artificial intelligence is a foregone conclusion. He also attempts to make a comparison between the natural and artificial minds. I evaluated this book with the assistance of four more books. According to the author, the concept of artificial intelligence was first exploratory; but, through time, it developed from mere thoughts and hypotheses and became feasible...


Unlike the human mind, these computers were capable of updating themselves on a continuous basis based on mathematical computations. Haugeland refers to Thomas Hobbes as the “Father of Artificial Intelligence” in this work, which was written as early as the 1650s. According to Hobbes’ studies and discoveries, the human mind essentially makes use of mathematical operations in the same way that a pen and paper would be used to calculate, but this occurs on an internal level (Agrawal, Gans, & Goldfarb, 2017). According to him, a systematic order or sequence is necessary for the human mind to function at its peak performance level. This implies that humans and these robots are more similar than anybody could have anticipated. Given this commonality, it follows that these robots, just like humans, will ultimately find out what they are doing provided they follow their programs!

<END SNIP>


While debate may yet rage on-- this much, can be said with certainty: the question is nowhere near as simplistic, as you portray it, in your facile explanation.

Before seeing the aforementioned documentary, I was of the opinion, also, that consciousness was something confined to organic life. I have since changed my mind, to believe that it would only be a different type of consciousness, of something inorganic (again, for clarity's sake, I will skip going into any "hybrid" scenarios).

In fact, from the relating of your own image of Creation, that it is underpinned with "spirit," I think the view of Spirit's investing inorganic materials (which are the basis, remember, for all life), is the logical conclusion. That Spirit would only associate itself with organic structures, seems to contradict the idea that it would be the "source," as you say, for the whole of the universe. Do you not recognize that contradiction, just within the world of your own argument? If Spirit exists only in the tiniest of fractions of the universe which are organic, then, rather than being the source for all Creation, it would seem that calling it an infection, would be a more accurate description.

 

Ok, I guess in the view that I'm suggesting, all there is to a "sense of self" are things computers are capable of (self reference, and perhaps a few data points about itself). It is all that humans are capable of too. Humans sometimes think they have a deeper understanding, but humans often think they understand things they don't actually know that much about. In this interpretation, not only is an artificial "sense of self" possible, it has been here for a long time.

I think it does make a difference for the discussion started in the OP. Perhaps it doesn't matter whether computers are conscious, or whether humans are.

Sure, I can think of many reasons why. Reproducing creative thought seems interesting and useful.

I'm aware that I'm constructing a more and more narrow hypothetical here, but if all we need for consciousness is self-reference and some data points about itself, then we have passed it on. If I ask myself whether a computer is sentient, I find myself with the same problem as if I ask myself whether another human is sentient.

 

Well here we have the fundamental difference in our perspectives: I believe that having a sense of one's own being, a comprehension of one's individual "selfness," goes well beyond merely "self reference, and perhaps a few data points about (oneself)." But I suppose this comes down to an experiential difference, between us; if you do not feel that you experience your being, qualitatively, at an exponentially deeper, more intimate level, than does a confabulation of computer circuitry-- then nothing I can say, will change your opinion. I understand that we, could be portrayed as just a bunch of circuitry-- but there is much more biology that goes into our being, than just that. And our own circuitry, regarding self-awareness, is beyond comparison, in sophistication, to any computer, ever built. I could say the same, I think, about any chipmunk's self-awareness, compared to a computer's.

Below, is more confirmation of that foundational disparity, in our perceptions:

Again, there is more required for consciousness, of the type which is indicated, IMO, whenever the topic is "sentience," than merely "self-reference and some data points about itself." By that definition, if I were to program a computer to believe that its name was the same as my own, and that it shared certain biographical data with myself, it would appear that you would be saying that the two experiences of our "consciousness," would be comparable. I do not believe that, for practical purposes, any computer (yet), understands what it is. This is not to say that humans have perfect understanding, either, but we are able to feel that selfness, in a way that computers are currently incapable of experiencing.

 

Well, this suggests we should ask ourselves what it means to sense/feel/comprehend/understand. As far as I can tell, nothing goes into comprehension/understanding other than knowing how some of our other knowledge/beliefs/data relate to each other and the world around them, something computers (neural networks in particular) are pretty decent at doing. Similarly, nothing goes into feeling and sensing other than some hidden variables influenced by our thoughts or the external world, both possible by computers. Unless we can point our fingers at something specific required here, I don't see that this is anything beyond self-reference and a few data points.

I certainly feel that I experience my being, but I am not convinced that my impression of doing so is something beyond what a computer could do.

And I should reiterate the cop-out clause, I'm not so much arguing that this is definitely the case, I am merely saying that the OP has ruled it out without showing good reason. I can't confirm that there isn't a magical, soul-based essence that does some of the stuff, only with magic. However, I don't feel forced to conclude that that is the case.

I would probably agree that human/chipmunk consciousness is beyond what computers currently do, but I remain unconvinced that it would be by much, or by anything fundamental.

Yes, I am suggesting that human consciousness is comparable with a computer running a consciousness program.

There is nothing tangible in either concept that suggests that these are concepts that only occur with humans/animals/life, or particularly complex computers.