# Consciousness is not well-understood As an AI practitioner and philosopher, I don't think that humans will be able to create a truly conscious silicon-based AGI. - Humans are incapable of creating some "thing" from fiat (a decree). It's never happened in human history. The innovation cycle must begin with some "thing" (some "stuff" of some kind), and consciousness is not a thing. - The essence of consciousness is imperceptible (it is unseen), like gravity, and attraction. Humans are incapable of creating things that they are unable to observe. Even if they are able to observe it, the human perceptive ability is unable to actually perceive the true essences of things seen, much less those unseen. - Humans do not adequately understand the "essence" and "nature" of consciousness - which is a fundamental prerequisite to creating "anything" at all. - The "**easy**" problems, those physical by nature, although not yet solved by empirical domains of psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience, are expected to be solved in time. Regardless, **they are "not" yet solved today**. - The "**hard**" problems, those determining why or how consciousness occurs given the right arrangement of brain matter, **might not *ever* be solved**, since it must explain why certain physical mechanism gives rise to consciousness instead of "something else" or "nothing at all". This is significant and is the most damning of all arguments against the idea of humans creating true existential consciousness in silicon creatures as a whole. # [Dualism][1] vs [physicalism][2] The greatest philosophical debate on consciousness has focused on the distinction between [**dualism**][1] and [**physicalism**][2]. - **Dualism** is the theory that consciousness somehow falls outside the domain of the physical (these are the **hard** problems) - **Physicalism** holds that consciousness is entirely physical. (**significant arguments below view it as false**). ## Problems with dualist views - Why would one be motivated to hold one of the above **dualist** views? - How can something that is **not** part of the physical world interact with the physical world? That seems impossible! - The physical world is a **closed system**, how can you have a consciousness that is not part of a closed system? Consciousness is a lot like mass or charges, **it's a philosophically "fundamental" thing**, you either "have it or you don't", you can **simulate** them, but you **cannot existentially "be"** them unless you have those **specific "properties"**, and behavior "simulating" human consciousness is **not** a fundamental thing. So, despite the sensationalist tendencies of **rogue journalists "parroting" wildly spectacular concepts from the fringe camps of the transhumanists (aka science fiction)** - a quick perusal of the more rigorous communities of the grounded and thoughtful philosophers camp strongly and convincingly argues otherwise. ## More musings on physicalism Actually, consciousness has *never* been properly explained by the biomechanical, which is more or less the key issue of all philosophical studies of the mind - which is essentially the study of consciousness. Physicalists have **trouble** explaining several aspects of consciousness in a way that is consistent with our "**observations**" of how physical properties interact. Let me list a few more problems, a reference to the titans of philosophy. ### Arguments that physicalism about consciousness is wrong 1. It is **impossible** to imagine how mere neuronal tissue could produce conscious experience ([Huxly][3]) 2. Failures of supervenience, such as [zombies][4] and [inverted spectra][6], are conceivable ([David Chalmers][5], John Locke, etc.). 3. [Mary learns something][7] ([Frank Jackson][8]). 4. Brains have mass, volume, and other physical properties, but **experiences** do not. 5. Paranormal phenomena (near-death experiences **NDErs**, ESP, etc) are real, and involve consciousness implemented in a **nonphysical** substrate. 6. If shrunken so I can stroll around your brain and look about, I will observe neuronal processes, not experiences (G. W. Leibniz). 7. The soul is the seat of consciousness, and the soul is not physical. (Theological constraints recognized BTW...). 8. Conscious experiences have **intrinsic qualities**, but science can ***only*** tell us about **relational qualities** (Russell, Rosenberg). 9. **Consciousness cannot be observed**; there will **never** be a **consciousness detector** that can tell you if a given creature is conscious. 10. Conscious experiences are not simply the movement of molecules, consciousness is more than mass in motion (Mill, Ward). [1]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#DuaThe [2]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#PhyThe [3]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/ [4]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/ [5]: http://vedicilluminations.com/downloads/Consciousness-Life-After-Death/The-Conscious-Mind_D.Chalmers.pdf [6]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-inverted/#LocInvSpeSce [7]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#Sub [8]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026143#metadata_info_tab_contents