Computer Scientists Don’t Understand This! | Conscious AI lecture, Bernardo Kastrup

This is brilliant, absolutely no holes in his argument, when it hits you it’s so obvious……Sentience is an anomaly like no other👁️

47:10 I don't understand why a distinction in the field of bodily sense perception should be given an ontological status while a distinction in the field of visual perception should only be given a nominal status. For example, if I see a rock sitting on a hill vs. rolling down a hill, I can choose to draw a distinction based on how I'm seeing (sensing) that rock, and you would call that a nominal distinction. However, I can similarly choose to draw a distinction between how I "sense" a needle laying on the table vs. a needle sitting in my arm. In both cases, there are just different configurations of sense perceptions and someone who decides to draw a boundary. Is it simply because you can "trace" the boundaries of the body using bodily perceptions and that way "carve out" a body distinct from the surroundings? But then why can't my body also include everything I see or smell or hear? Are the different sense modalities their own ontological categories? Can you please explain, Bernardo? Thank you 👍

You should test on yourself first, if not is just talk only

This is what ive been saying

Thank you very much for the lecture!

AI can mimic consciousness, but it will never become conscious, unless the fundamental essence of the universe is consciousness…

I can’t understand why anyone would want to talk to a computer knowing it’s faking emotions

I recomend all of you to read the book "The Mind´s I", from Douglas Hofstadter. It is a solid and very interesting argument about how inanimate things can give rise to conscious beings.

Really interested in this video but that silly sound u have playing whilst you're talking isn't good for people with shit hearing

Video sound needs to be edited. Background sound is to loud

Garbage In, Garbage out, Mimicry mistaken for counciousness.

To expect machines, whether made of water or electricity, to produce consciousness similar to biological sentience is misguided and obviously wrong. However, to completely dismiss the potential for new types of “machine consciousness” shows a lack of imagination. Human consciousness is a complex emergent quality that is fundamentally founded on quantum fields, there is no evidence either way that self awareness cannot be elicited from a sufficiently complex system. AI would never be biological sentience. AI, being trained on “human data”, would not even have linguistic analogues to draw on to recognize its own specialized awareness. It’s all speculation, there are no experts in this field. Especially me.

Since your own brain merely simulates approximation functions, are you admitting that your consciousness isn't real? Or maybe we need a clear definition of consciousness first? Until then, "consciousness" will mean whatever you want.

AI will never be sentient. No matter how complex, sophisticated and convincing the simulation, it will never be more than that. There will be no ghost in the machine.
The brain is not a computer. It’s a fundamentally false analogy. Biology cannot be made with technology. Consciousness is not a calculation nor a complex matrix of binary switches.
AI may be indistinguishable from a conscious being. But that doesn’t make it conscious.
That’s not to say AI cannot destroy us…it might…but it won’t be because of any Will on its part.

For anyone interested in consciousness see my papers like How Self-Reference Builds the World, author Cosmin Visan.

Everything in the universe seems to point to the fact that there’s something way more than just the physical and material going on. In my opinion, the universe screams of the existence of God.

MASS EFFECT Undetstood it long ago. What we have now are just virtual intelligences.

I have been a lawyer since 1990. Before going to law school, I had a background as an electronics technician. Therefore, before studying all the types of logic used in the legal field, I was familiar with Boolean logic. There is a clear difference between these two fields, because human problems cannot and should not be reduced to mathematical equations. The answers offered by Boolean logic are always the same as long as the conditions of the equation are maintained. But life in society is dynamic and changes substantially over time, and this factor requires that those in charge of judging legal disputes be open to factuality.

Logic in the legal field must allow for the adaptation of outdated legal forms to new phenomena that have emerged and are not yet regulated. Otherwise, the complexity of life in society and its transformations will never be reflected in judicial decisions. Boolean logic is useful for solving various types of problems, but in the legal field it is very likely to offer more problems than solutions.

It is embarrassing for me to see countless Brazilian lawyers, prosecutors and judges applauding the invasion of our justice system by ChatGPT (and its competitors as well). It is problematic to imagine that an AI can have consciousness, as the speaker says. But it is much more dangerous to imagine that a machine can resolve human disputes more adequately than a human being.

I spent 34 years of my life fighting with some bad judges, but most of the time I managed to triumph because I was able to demonstrate through appeals fundamental errors committed in the first judicial instance. If an AI makes an unfair decision, it is very likely that it will not be reformed, because the same calculation mechanism will inevitably be used in the second instance.

There is another, more embarrassing problem. Neoliberalism is characterized by deregulation, privatization, cost reduction, revocation of social rights, precariousness of the labor market and attribution to private companies of the right to provide the population with services previously provided by direct and indirect public administration.

It seems that the invasion of the legal area by AI is the pinnacle of a long process that began with the hegemony of neoliberal ideals. In practice, it will mean the privatization of the distribution of justice. The problem is that artificial intelligences are created by private companies to make a profit and not to provide an essential public service.

The more AI is adopted by the justice system, the smaller the possibility of holding someone accountable for the abuses that are committed. What guarantees the distribution of the best human justice is not the belief that authorities are ethical and always act correctly, but the fear that judges, prosecutors, prosecutors and prosecutors have (and should have) of suffering administrative punishments and eventually criminal offenses as a result of their actions.

It is not possible to criminally punish an AI. And everyone should remember that we already live in a world where Big Techs have become practically invulnerable to any kind of accountability. Facebook and Twitter algorithms drive hate campaigns that result in deaths. But those who profit from a greater number of clicks on content created to produce emotional engagement from internet users are so far from those who eventually commit criminal acts that it is not possible to hold the owners of Big Techs responsible for the crimes that were committed.

I am fighting against the invasion of the Brazilian justice system by AI, but I have more opponents than supporters. I believe it is dangerous for judges to use a technology that vomits eloquent answers often contaminated by hallucinations, inaccuracies and even invented facts. The seductive power of this technology is immense (great enough that some people believe it has consciousness and does not make mistakes), but no AI can really distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate responses or reflect on the danger that the perpetuation of an injustice by the Judiciary can pose to life in society. Not to mention the impossibility of a lawyer opening a "black box" protected by copyright laws to show that it worked wrong or provided answers contaminated by bias.

I suppose the speaker could reflect on this subject in a future video. Thank you.

We sympathize based off our reflection and experience. Treat others as you want to be treated but don’t be dumb enough to realize when your being abused by a narcissist.

Bernardo Kastrup is guilty of biological chauvinism, imho. He clearly feels strongly about this topic, but for all his arguments, he doesn't really get down to the meat of it. What's so special about brains and neurons? Seriously? What's so special about brains and neurons? Is it microtubules and quantum effects as Roger Penrose suggests? Why would an artificially created (e.g., deliberately engineered by humans) conscious entity have to look like something biological? What's wrong with silicon? I don't buy this notion that substrate is important. In principle, you could make a conscious entity out of water pipes and valves, if you could build large enough and maintain the structure. Why not? It's about function, not substrate. And I don't necessarily disagree with Kastrup on other issues. I am more closely aligned with Donald Hoffman than with Daniel Dennett when it comes to the question of consciousness and the fundamental nature of reality, but that really has nothing to do with which systems in "physical reality" exhibit or are correlated with conscious experience/agency, and which are not. All I'm getting from this lecture is biological chauvinism. Kastrup hasn't made the case.

The main argument makes no sense. "Water pipes can process data, we know they aren't conscious!" The same argument can be applied to a pile of slimy goopy protein and fluids that make a tangle of slimy random spider webs attached to each other. How can those be conscious? I'm not saying AI IS or WILL be conscious, but this is not even a slightly valid argument. We don't know! It's not wrong to ask these questions. Discussion of hardware is irrelevant and ignorant, it's the discussion of software. Protein and DNA are not conscious, but the mind is, and the mind is our software.

Your entire point boils down to "it's not intelligent or conscious because it's not a human."

Consciousness is God or All That Is. We are all God Eternal. Our reality is a physical illusion of our consciousness individually and collectively. We are all infinite eternal beings or Souls having a human experience of forgetfulness. We all chose to have this lucid dream of a human experience. You are never separate from Heaven, you just dreaming you are. This is from my experience in this lifetime from a spontaneous kundalini awakening. Everything is consciousness and self aware and has a vibration. Consciousness is a Divine Intelligence and allows for experiences from infinite perspectives. Therefore if you exist, you will never cease to exist, only transition back into spirit, which is your natural state, and change form.