Printable View
A useful entry into his theory is his early book ´The Atman Project´, online available as PDF. Please check Google for ´The Atman Project - Imagomundi´. This post is denied when I insert the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Here is a video with Ken explaining the levels of consciousness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXyiDI6e26o
I enjoyed the video, Tammuz. I usually see only the vertical development. I don't understand what's involved in the horizontal development that Wilber refers to.
A fradulent hock of crap.
J
Could you be more specific? What do you think is not crap? Do you have links to some of it?
You're not crap.
Here's something that is not crap, with a link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2xBaX5awlc
J
I listened to the song. What do you think of the movie "Melancholia"? https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/melancholia-2008/
Seems a bit like a fraudulent hock of crap?
J
Sorry, just being obnoxious. It actually looks pretty interesting.
If I recall correctly, Science is an off-shoot of Philosophy, as in, Philosophy subsumes Science.
I believe Science is credited as having been developed by Francis Bacon with his invention of The Scientific Method in his Novum Organum. Science was initially labeled Natural Philosophy, but much like children that grow up and divorce themselves from their parents, so too did Science from Philosophy.
I need know nothing more than that to ascertain Philosophy's perennial worth.
I'm not sure if you are positive or negative toward Philosophy, Vota.
Let me ask a question that could be considered both philosophical and scientific that I have been thinking about lately and that introduces more specific ideas: Do you think that artificial intelligence is possible?
"I need know nothing more than that to ascertain Philosophy's perennial worth." - Vota
I was implying that because Philosophy spawned Science, Philosophy is indeed worthwhile. I could have gone further and talked about how Philosophy asks questions and leads to imaginative thinking - both of which can help Science. Philosophy can also provide moral guidance through ethics; it can teach people how to reason better and think logically; it strengthens the mind etc.
I have the deepest respect for Philosophy.
As to your question, I do believe Artificial Intelligence is possible. If your question is approached from a biological perspective, and if you believe in The Theory of Evolution, then humans attained self awareness over time, through constant reiteration into a form that was capable of it. One might look at the development of technology in a similar matter, except, rather than evolution and natural selection being the marionettist of human development, humans have taken that position in relation to the development of AI. It think it is only a matter of time before it happens. It may have already happened for all we know, considering the secrets our governments keep from us.
I don't have much knowledge about AI or technology for that matter, other than building computers, which isn't any harder to do than basic mechanic work, so I can only engage in guesswork with this question. My philosophical knowledge is also pretty limited at this point in time, so there's also that to take into consideration.
The saying, "Science Fiction tends to become reality," is an accurate statement IMO. People were writing about space travel, deep sea travel, advanced technologies and more, long before it actually happened. I don't see AI being any different.
I'm in the camp that thinks this is a very slippery slope. The recent HBO TV show West World exposes many of the problems that AI brings with it. The Terminator movies are merely the doom and glood aspect, but what of rights, self determination, and the myriad considerations and problems that AI will bring with it? What happens if an AI in a computer program decides it would like a physical body to move around in. Can an AI be allowed to own a gun? What happens if an AI rapes a human? What happens when the AI are smarter than the humans that made them? The list is nearly endless. Perhaps AI will be the key to unlocking Interstellar travel that occurs within the lifespan of the average human being. Maybe AI will help Transhumanism efforts, allowing people to live hundreds of years? Perhaps all diseases will be cured? Who knows?
Slippery slope.
That clarifies my initial wonder since you do think philosophy is valuable. Some think science has replaced the need for it, or rather models used by science are all that one needs: reality is whatever model currently works.
For my part I think science ends when data gathering and analysis are complete with a model that can be put to use. As soon as one speculates that the model represents reality as it is, then one is talking philosophy.
The question about AI brings out this distinction between science and philosophy. People who think AI is possible allow for two possibilities: strong AI, where machines are actually conscious, and weak AI, where one thinks that those machines just might be conscious. There is a third possibility they don't mention that is likely more commonly believed: no AI, there is no point in even fantasizing that those machines are conscious. I'm of the "no AI" opinion. For example, when my smart phone breaks, I get a new one and trade the old one in if possible. I don't give the old one a funeral. I don't cry over it like I might a beloved pet.
So what justifies a no AI opinion? Or a strong or weak AI position? That would have to be a philosophic argument about reality because the underlying mathematical model used to program artificial intelligence, that is, the underlying science is not in question. We all use it.
I can't offer much more on AI other than my initial comments as I'd end up talking out of my ***.
Philosophy is clearly worthwhile for some very obvious reasons. If one does not choose to follow a religion, then how is one to conduct themself around others? Science cannot teach you how to be a "good" person, or how to rightly act towards others. Cultural and societal norms aren't necessarily good guides for behavior. Sure, you can use the Scientific Method to run experiments by forming hypotheses about how X saying or action will produce Y result in a person, run the experiment, and then observe the results and analyze the data, but that's stupid - because Ethics already guides with a moral compass, and provides many logical reasons as to why its tenets should be followed.
Personally, I think Philosophy's primary worth in modern times is as a mental strengthener and moral compass for those that are not religious. A "proper" Christian has a great moral foundation. The Ten Commandments and the Gospels of Jesus cover a lot of ground in how to act towards others, and the saying, "Do unto others as ye would have done unto you" really is the Golden Rule, subsuming all other commandments if legitimately considered before each saying or action one commits to. This is probably why I find myself drawn to Kant despite hearing of the difficulty of his work. The Categorical Imperative makes sense to me, and seems to be an elaboration of the Golden Rule.
But if one is not religious, then Philosophy can provide some semblance of consolation, similar to, if not as strong, as faith based systems. The Man on the Hill from the book Tom Jones said it well before proselytizing the superiority of religion, "They elevate the mind, and steel and harden it against the capricious invasions of fortune. They not only instruct in the Knowledge of Wisdom, but confirm men in her habits, and demonstrate plainly that this must be our guide, if we propose ever to arrive at the greatest worldly happiness, or to defend ourselves with any tolerable security against the misery which everywhere surrounds and invests us."
I think we agree on the relevance of philosophy.
Regarding morality, the Buddha's middle way seems to me to make sense. One is moral so one can get on with the more important activity of being human. It involves choices even when it is done unconsciously, that is, when one is not explicitly aware of each choice/action such as how one moves the feet when one is walking. But I don't know much about Buddhism.
Siddharta Gautama, founder of Buddhism, viewed suffering as a basic condition of life, being caused by the lack of personal enlightenment, that is, the lack of being aware of the Nirvana. Not being enlightened means to cling to ephemeral thoughts, emotions, and material shapes, and thereby to expose oneself to the experience of disappointment, illness, pain, and death. There is, according to Buddha, only one ´place´ of true bliss: the Nirvana, the deathless dimension. Existing in the Samsara, the world of ephemeral phenomena, is necessarily accompanied by suffering, even if temporarily the illusion of happiness and fulfilment can be produced due to the effect of the imaginary ego-function.
A central Buddhist idea is the concept of ´non-self´ (an-atman) by which Buddha rejected the Brahmanic teaching of ´Brahman = true self´. This concept aims at preventing the adept from clinging to the idea of a self (or ego). Samsara and Nirvana are two poles of an existential dualism, since Buddha thought the Samsara to be real and not just an illusion (maya), as the Brahmanism teaches. Therefore, Buddha can be called a dualist, what is contrary to monistic Brahmanism.
However, some centuries later Mahayana Buddhism converged with Brahmanism concerning the monistic nature of the world.
Early Buddhism (Hinayana), which was exclusively based on Buddha´s teaching, hold that the phenomenal world consists of ´dharmas´ (basic factors of existence), including dharmas as elements of the material world as well as dharmas as elements of the mental world (consciousness and thinking). Both these elementary categories are not recognizable for the sensory organs. Since they have no substance or essence, they emerge and decay according to the principle of causality, the so-called ´conditional nexus´ (or ´causal nexus´). Thus they are empty of self-being or essence, however, they ´exist´.
This very form of existence is denied by later Mahayana Buddhism by creating the innovative concept of ´Shunyata´ (emptiness). The protagonist of this school was Nagarjuna, teaching that all things (or dharmas) not only lack essence or self-being, but also existence. The basic idea of this was the insight into the incapability of conceptional thinking to seize the true nature of the world. Notions such as dharma, existence, being, and non-being cannot appropriately describe reality and therefore have to be dialectically negated. Paradoxically, ´Shunyata´ is thus a concept which basically denies conceptional thinking because it produces mere illusion. To put it quite simply, Nagarjuna´s method was to negate concepts as well as their opposites, for example:
There is being.
There is no being.
There is being and there is non-being.
There is neither being nor non-being.
(and so on)
According to the concept of Shunyata the true nature of the world is unrecognizable by means of conceptual thinking. However, it is recognizable by means of meditative expansion of consciousness.
As to that, Mahayana Buddhism differs from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant who thought the objects of the phenomenal world to be constituted solely by innate mental structures on the basis of sense-data, which on their part are also not mirroring the true thing which Kant coined the´Thing-in-itself´, existing far beyond the reach of consciousness and basically unattainable for it.
The issue of dualism and monism is confusing. Your description, Tammuz, seems to make sense.
My own view of it, which changes, is monistic. The world around me is not an illusion, but my view of what it is might be an illusion. I sort of agree with the Shunyata position the real world is "unrecognizable by means of conceptual thinking" except I think we can get some insight through the use of concepts. The problem is that we cannot completely objectify subjective consciousness which is what concepts attempt to do. So concepts will ultimately fail.
The world including ourselves is an immanent manifestation of consciousness. It is all Mind or Consciousness and we are part of it. When we look at it and manipulate it we think it is unconscious stuff. That is our illusion, but it is not an illusion. It is really there. It is just not unconscious matter as our concepts would tend to describe it.
Maybe Hegel gives a useful hint to a solution of the dilemma whether reality is dualistic or monistic. In his view, it is both, that is, dialectical. The individual subject is merely a reflex or stadium of the absolute subject, the world spirit (WS). In the beginning, the WS externalizes into objectivity, thereby constituting the counterpart of objectivity, that is, subjectivity (consciousness). This is, with a non-Hegelian term, ´involution´. Thus the WS has split into contrary poles. However, these poles are totally dependent on one another, they are two sides of one coin, the WS. This contradiction is, for Hegel, indissoluble.
Absolute knowledge is only possible by completely seeing through this state of affairs. This process is called ´reflexion´. By this the WS, split into a manifold of individual consciousnesses, gets self-awareness and self-knowledge until the point of absolute knowledge. This ascending process is ´evolution´.
Moreover, Hegel holds that the subject is identical with substance, which is the totality of consciousness operations and transformations.
In this view the material world seems to vanish into thin air since it serves only the development of absolute consciousness and has no being in itself. It seems to me, however, that the dialectical approach is a step in the right direction: consciousness is not an individual achievement but a universal quality in which individuals merely are participating, a bit in the sense of the sort of transcendent participation which Plato coins ´methexis´, but not in ideas but in a more Brahmanic type of absolute spirit, such as Brahman.
Hegel´s ideas could be synchronized with Nagarjuna´s concept of Shunyata in the following way: rational cognition is operated by dialectical understanding of conceptional transformations, as Hegel takes it; spiritual cognition transcends this level by entering the dimension of Shunyata. According to Nagarjuna there are two levels of truth: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The first is recognized by the rational operations of mind which have, on this level, a mind-expanding function; the second is recognized by transcending the categories of mind which are, on this level, restricting true knowledge. Najarjuna emphasizes the constructive value of conventional truth for teaching the ultimate truth, see quote below. However, if conventional truth is hold to be ultimate truth, things go wrong.
So we have at least four levels of knowledge:
(1) The level of opposition of subject and recognizable object (everyday consciousness)
(2) The level of opposition of subject and non-recognizable object (Kantian consciousness)
(3) The level of dialectical unity of subject and object (Hegelian consciousness)
(4) The level of non-existence of subject and object (Mahayana and Zen Buddhism consciousness)
Nagarjuna in ´Mūlamadhyamakakārikā´:
Hegel in ´Phenomenology of Spirit´:Quote:
The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.
My philosophical favorit Ken Wilber writes on this issue:Quote:
Raised above perception, consciousness exhibits itself closed in a unity with the supersensible world through the mediating term of appearance, though which it gazes into this background (lying behind appearance). The two extremes (of this syllogism), the one, of the pure inner world, the other, that of the inner being gazing into this pure inner world, have now coincided, and just as they, qua extremes, have vanished, so too the middle term, as something other than these extremes, has also vanished. This curtain (of appearance) hanging before the inner world is therefore drawn away, and we have the inner being (the ‘I’) gazing into the inner world - the vision of undifferentiated selfsame being, which repels itself from itself, posits itself as an inner being containing different moments, but for which equally these moments are immediately not different - self-consciousness.
http://www.kenwilber.com/Writings/PD...OSMOS_2004.pdf
I haven't finished reading the Wilbur text you cited, but I don't normally think "emergence" is a correct approach to increased complexity in systems. For example Wilber writes, page 3, "...when life...emerges 'out of' matter...". The need to quote the "out of" implies that the concept of emergence is not clear, but the metaphor is that life can be reduced to matter even when that is denied.
I don't think there is any emergence or supervenience going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience
Also, I haven't read Hegel. The "dialectical" appears to be a way to allow change to occur and this needs explanation. The change is neither random nor deterministic although from an aggregate perspective it may appear to be so. That would be one source of the illusion. I think that evolutionary change occurs in non-random, self-affine fractals like Elliott Waves in market analysis rather than Mandelbrot's random fractals.
I'll read more of the Wilber article. I think you have referenced him in the past. I just wanted to post an initial reaction.
Edit: After reading more of the Wilber article, he appears to describe reality as a top-down process. I view emergence as a bottom-up process. Matter is exterior to the interior spirit. I could then interpret matter as an ephiphenomenon of spirit or as an emergent property of spirit. That would fit my monistic perspective.
I've looked a little more into Ken Wilber's writings and also his site http://www.kenwilber.com/home/landing/index.html
I am not sure what his message is. So far it seems vague. Part of my problem is I don't trust modern thinking that references science whether that comes from materialists or New Age spiritualists. If he cited more research to support his theory, I would be more receptive to it.
"As the progress of mathematical and experimental sciences accelerates, so too does the decay of subjectivity, the dissolution of the self, the disappearance of consciousness into the unconscious, and in short, of the 'ego cogitans' into the dark jungle of neurophysiology."-Stanley Rosen
Philosophy is now more alive than ever. Science can not answer the particular questions that man needs to ask.
I agree with you, Alvin. There is no way to avoid philosophy. People do it without realizing they are doing it.
I also like your quote of Stanley Rosen.
As soon as one uses a mathematical model one makes two philosophic assumptions:
(1) What one is modeling can be reduced to points.
(2) Those points are individuated.
Doing this leads to practical benefits in some restricted contexts and the technology we use today is proof of it. This success leads to an metaphysical belief that EVERYTHING including consciousness can be modeled by reducing it to individuated, unconscious points. That is a generalization that is not warranted by either reason or empirical science. It is a belief.
YesNo,
The difficulty I see with "Philosophy" taking place "where it should", academia&communal places, is that "the objective" has become "the subjective". Now that morality is done away with in the public arena and has become "subjective" , "The objective" mathematics is "the subjective" when mathematics is really nothing more than a model or "the objective" that allows "the subjective" to communicate, understand, and be cognitive. Mathematics(political as well) is neither the definitive objective or subjective, but it has become so.
Alvin Peplar aka Mike
I think I agree with you about mathematics.
Mathematics is way to construct a model that allows us to make predictions. This means that our models will be deterministic. When the predictions more or less come true this makes people think that reality IS the model, that is, reality is some mixture of determinism or unconscious randomness. When that happens subjectivity becomes unreal in spite of the fact that subjectivity is the only thing we can know. Unconscious objective reality, like a text or a computer running a program, knows nothing. This leads to a belief that we do not make any kind of choice because that would imply something new enters the model or "system" coming from an agent that is not the result of either determinism or randomness.
Anyway that is how I see the relationship of mathematics to our subjectivity.
YesNo,
Well phrased. This is why I think all the A.I. debates are a bunch of mularkey. Your post speaks the same goes for "values"(now Ideology")...
Mike
I don't think artificial intelligence will ever generate consciousness. It is mularkey, as you mention, however, these machines are useful for performing a lot of tasks we shouldn't be doing ourselves such as going to Mars or the Moon or exploring space.
The reason I don't think they will become conscious is based on a definition of what consciousness is. I think consciousness requires the ability to make a "choice" that is not based on a deterministic/random optimization and it is not totally individualistic. It is more likely that an electron is conscious in some way than a table or a computer, as a table or computer, is. Also we can't objectify our subjectivity. That was tried with Principia Mathematica in the earth 20th century and Godel showed it would not work for arithmetic. Also Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment raises doubts that functional mimicking equals subjective awareness.
I do like discussing these topics. What are you reading related to philosophical issues? Another book I am in the middle of is David Sloan Wilson's "Does Altruism Exist?" He is a biologist, but the questions he raises are philosophical. He would say that altruism does exist in contrast to selfish gene individualism if I understand him correctly. His perspective is similar to Haidt's.
YesNo,
Consciousness is something humans can hardly understand, so there can no way possible for it to be recreated. Like the old Hermit simply puts it in "Blood Meridian": "A man's at odds to know his mind cause is aught he has to know it with".
I don't read too much on the topic of "consciousness", primarily I read Metaphysics. Recently, I've been reading Donald Philip Verene's titles. Wow. He has me reading some Whitehead, a little, not much; then Ernst Cassirer of late. However, this past weekend I was reading last few published stories by Tolstoy. "Hadji Murad" still has me contemplating. What an amazing piece, it is on par with Conrad's "HOD". The last few Tolstoy publications contemplate "death": you can't be that for tackling main issues of philosophy. Alot of Phaedo directly inspiring later Tolstoy. Phaedo was the first piece by Plato to grab me. So, Tolstoy's writing on death are pretty awesome.
Alvin Peplar aka Mike
I see Verene's "The History of Philosophy" in a local library. I'll check it out today. I agree with the Phaedo that the soul is immortal.
Some of the problems with consciousness comes from confusing it with our individual awareness which is filtered through our bodies and can be modified by doing things to the body, like opening our eyes in the morning or drinking coffee, which makes one suspect that consciousness is nothing but this awareness.
I finished reading as much as I want at the moment of David Sloan Wilson's "Does Altruism Exist?" I also read Peter Singer's "The Most Good You Can Do". I plan to reread Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind". These three books are all about morality.
I learnt from Wilson that the word "altruism" goes back to August Comte's efforts to create an atheistic moral community. Altruism is not a traditional religious idea. A religious idea of benevolence involves a win-win situation if one breaks it down into an individual and the group the individual is part of. Altruism implies a potential loss for the individual but a win for the group. This view of a group implies a reductionist ability to view the group as a collection of individuals. The group, in this view, is nothing more than the sum of its individual parts, like a line is the sum of its individual points. I think that can be rejected philosophically, but I wonder if it can be rejected through scientific measurements as well. These people have rejected selfishness (win-lose) for the (individual-group) as the only selection mechanism in Darwinian evolution. I wonder if one can reject their multi-level selection process which includes altruism (lose-win) as well and move toward a pure group centered (win-win) selection process. I suspect this would bring goal-oriented or teleological causes back into science, something I think Thomas Nagel wanted to do with his panpsychism.
Since no one can satisfactorily define consciousness, no one could presently create it. The definition may come which allows us to strain it through something artificial. But I do not want to slog that ground again. I know where people stand.
My belief employs abstract consciousness as the original potential, when nothing else may have existed. It is pure and does not need to be broken down into further constituents, like such contrivances as meta-things would have to be. Consciousness generates properties, which are not themselves constituents that make it up, but add-ons.
Another property of at least two forms of consciousness is imagination. We have it, and the original consciousness had to have it, also, to make everything else. The original consciousness holds the universe (everything might be a better description) fully in its imagination, like a light bulb that is turned on, and that we can conceive of being suddenly turned off, whether that is actually possible.
I can continue writing the long word consciousness, or I can write the short one God most of the time, with the understanding that my definition differs from the traditional meaning somewhat, without getting into those exact details immediately. I will do neither. I will write Orc instead, to designate Original Consciousness.
We have all heard the statement The characters came alive. In our case the characters came alive enough to believe they were alive and real. We are only as real as characters in Orc's work of fiction, perhaps not its only opus, either. Orc would require a large playground as I see it, making it difficult to envision myself as the first or the most advanced of his characters, given that Orc has been at it for an eternity already.
Our own fiction mimics Orc's. Though our results are puny, it is our assignment.
I also assume that all of us at one time or another have been so enthralled by a piece of fiction, a movie, a television series, a novel, a play... that we wished we could become part of it for real--like happened with the painting in the Twilight Zone episode.
For an afterlife we may get what we have created, or someone else has, or perhaps what Orc has imagined again. The reality of afterlife would have to be held poised in Orc's imagination, as well, just like our so called physical universe. Orc did all we see and feel and think, before us, so I suspect Orc was up to the job of imagining an afterlife for us, if that is not strictly our own task to complete.
Consciousness cannot be killed, but its house can be burned to the ground. Our brains did not create consciousness but allowed some through. The brain's form matters. We allow through more than mosquitoes do.
Therefore the question of artificial intelligence has been formed wrong for the purposes of philosophy. You cannot create what is already there. But you might just be able to construct a form which allows some consciousness through. Forms are not sacred. Orc found millions of forms that work right here on earth, and we might too. If anything is sacred, then consciousness is, not the form which allows it through, which is just a tool.
Consciousness as an add-on to a programmed machine is reverse engineering, and may be a scientific dead end. The form which finally allows some of Orc through may be organic in nature, though fully constructed by man. An organic brain constructed by us which is not human and sits in its case obviously conscious because it can communicate with us, is not so far fetched. Perhaps we only need to learn the rules for letting a proper brain assemble itself.
I agree with this: "Our brains did not create consciousness but allowed some through. The brain's form matters. We allow through more than mosquitoes do." We can already create forms that allow Orc through. They are called children.
I also agree with this: "Therefore the question of artificial intelligence has been formed wrong for the purposes of philosophy. You cannot create what is already there. But you might just be able to construct a form which allows some consciousness through." Again we already do this through children.
I also agree with this: "Since no one can satisfactorily define consciousness, no one could presently create it." If we were able to define consciousness completely, that definition would be both the form AND consciousness. Then consciousness would be reduced to a form. One could then say that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the supposedly unconscious form. The subjective would have been objectified in a definition, a text. Subjectivity would not just be described by the text as a story might so that some other subjectivity can experience it, but that text would experience itself even though it is unconscious and cannot experience anything. That contradiction of an unconscious text being conscious of itself is why, I think, AI is impossible. The best AI will attain is a functional simulation of behaviors observed by conscious reality. And that is all we need to use these AI machines to explore reality about us.
One can also ask if the forms are themselves unconscious? Are neurons unconscious as neurons? Are atoms unconscious as atoms? I don't think any of these are unconscious in themselves, however, the things that we make using them such as a desk is unconscious as a desk; a computer is unconscious as a computer. The atoms making up the desk or computer may be conscious as atoms. This flips things around: any unconsciousness we run into in reality is an epiphenomenon of underlying consciousness.
Babies do not count in the race for artificial intelligence. Our involvement is too minute. We pull one lever at the start.
It could easily happen that we first find another's artificial creation during our galactic explorations, before we figure consciousness out for ourselves.
The hard-to-accept concept is that we ourselves are artificial, unless our existence is the product of random forces. Creation implies will. The volcano created havoc, is language at work increasing its expressive range, not evidence for a willful volcano. Even though we are artificial, we and our babies do not count.
Though we might never learn an independent magic trick for creating intelligence, the ability to enhance and increase it without limit in already sentient beings might be much easier and within our grasp. Of course we already have such a trick called education. We would need new modes of education, once our creation was smarter than us. It is hard not to envision it at some point taking over our education and becoming the educator.
Starting with a machine and reverse engineering through add-ons might only get asymptotically close to consciousness without achieving it. At a certain point we would have no more valid tests to determine if it was conscious. Our machines could edge so close to consciousness that we could no longer tell the difference between their consciousness or unconsciousness. We can get closer and closer to pi by adding new decimal places and filling them in. Not that many places are required for accuracy in most types of computations. We may never reach pi, but we can get infinitesimally close by filling in enough decimal places. At a certain point we are no longer able to tell the difference.
Computers are already better at reasoning than we are, but they aren't conscious. They can also do things we can't do, but they aren't conscious. The main test of consciousness, for me, is the ability to make a real choice. Machines can't do this because they are programmed. We know they have programming because we put it there. Some people try to solve the AI problem by saying that we don't make choices either. They claim that everything we do is determined by something prior or is the result of a uniformly random, that is, unconscious, process. But proving that is difficult because "everything" is not easy to control in a proof or experiment and those promoting free will need only show that we can make one, even a tiny, choice to defeat the argument.
Perhaps one way to make progress is to find a way to describe unconsciousness. Again, I would go back to the idea of making a choice and claim--that is, define--unconsciousness as what can completely be explained through deterministic or uniformly random processes. A computer would fit this definition of unconsciousness. So would a table as a table. An electron, however, would not be unconscious by this definition given quantum indeterminism. This is why quantum physics provides a justification for idealism rather than materialism and it is why materialists are pushed into a corner forcing them to look to non-empirical solutions such as "many worlds" as a way to preserve their philosophic position.
I do think we can use unconscious technology to enhance our conscious living experiences. For example, listening to binaural beats (a form of unconsciousness since bits on a computer are not conscious as bits) may improve our minds if we listen to them long enough perhaps like meditation or hypnosis or even sleeping does. You can find some of this by searching for it on YouTube.
I can't edit posts, so I will add this. When you write, desiresjab, "The volcano created havoc, is language at work increasing its expressive range, not evidence for a willful volcano." I think you are saying something similar to what I am saying. The volcano needs to make a choice, needs to be "willful", as a volcano for it to be conscious. I agree. Being able to make a choice, being willful, is the criteria for consciousness and the inability to be willful is the criteria for unconsciousness.
Yes, willfulness is one more property of consciousness. Whether these properties came one at a time and later, is not known, or whether they existed forever right along with consciousness. If they did come along, that means consciousness had already existed forever without its properties, which seems rather unlikely. In that case, all the properties of consciousness were always with it, whether things themselves had a beginning or not. I have most success with the scenario where at least consciousness always existed. Everything else existing forever creates problems for the thinking.
I think willfulness is a way to show that some reality is actually conscious. That reality is then an "agent" in some more or less limited sense. I think specific forms of "awareness" such as our human awareness is what gets added onto agents and that limits consciousness. So rather than the Turing Test to show evidence of consciousness, one needs to show willfulness that cannot be reduced to a determinisitc/random process.
On a separate topic, I started reading Luc Ferry's "A Brief History of Thought". This is a survey of philosophy from an atheistic perspective. What I find interesting is how he uses the concept of "rational". I think it could be argued that we were in an Age of the Rational from say the mid 17th century to the late 20th century (and perhaps up to the present in some contexts such as the US stock market). What we are in now is a correction to that which might last an additional 30 to 70 years. If that is the case then Ferry would be an old school thinker still in this Age of the Rational social mood. At least that is how I am reading the book.