Answers.Body: <p>Are kids conscious?</p>
  <p>I always say that if a human can do it, and AI will be able to do it. There is nothing special to us: no magic, no soul. We will eventually crack intelligence. I personally don't even bother with the term &quot;conscious&quot;. It doesn't mean much.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-17T13:14:46.090Z
Answers.Text: Whilst I agree with the sentiment, this answer doesn't really engage with the question as asked. Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum, and we're not looking for opinions.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-17T13:39:22.913Z
Answers.Text: @NeilSlater Aren't you asking in the wrong place then?
Answers.UserDisplayName: asdfasdfsdf
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-17T13:53:37.210Z
Answers.Text: I am not asking anything. The OP has given references that they are trying to understand and resolve, and a good answer would reference and/or address them, or bring up equivalent references that the OP could use to understand the subject further. This answer so far expresses a personal opinion. I don't disagree with it, but I think it is not a good quality answer for our site in its current form.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Neil Slater
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-17T16:48:02.683Z
Answers.Text: You are assuming functionalism. So this answer is just an opinion. I know this is an extremely popular viewpoint, especially among scientists, but you shouldn't make the mistake to think somehow that it's a "proven fact" or anything of the sorts.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Stefan Perko
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-07-17T11:32:25.860Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-07-17T11:32:25.860Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: asdfasdfsdf
Body: <p>I was thinking about the following:</p>
  <p>According to Sir Roger Penrose &quot;No computer has any awareness of what it does.&quot;.</p>
  <p>Now some context to his statement:</p>
  <p>Penrose’s argument in summary in his book (The emperor's new mind: concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics) is that:</p>
  <ul>
  <li>We don’t understand physics well enough to use it to describe our brains.</li>
  <li>We don’t understand the mind well enough to create a framework capable of accommodating human consciousness.</li>
  <li>Since our minds do not operate ‘computationally’ and are non-algorithmic, our intelligence, therefore, can’t be recreated by computers (<a href="https://projectqsydney.com/roger-penrose-versus-the-world/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source</a>).</li>
  </ul>
  <p>Let's look at the latest controversy started by a Google engineer who claimed that <code>Lambda</code> is self aware. But, then I came across Searle’s Chinese Room and realized that Lambda is not self aware.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/3Bq2S.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/3Bq2S.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>Then there are other self learning AIs like <code>OpenAIFive</code> that was really good in playing DOTA2.</p>
  <p>But how do we know this AI understands what it's doing? If not then is there a possibility that a hypothetical AGI in future might be aware of its actions?</p>
  <p>As a note I will add that the brain is still a big mystery and there's no unanimous  consensus on a single definition of consciousness. And I think every definition out there is just a combination of thought and faith/belief. And Penrose as of lately does however thinks that there might be a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics.</p>
  
Tags: <philosophy><agi><artificial-consciousness><imagination>
Title: Can an AI have awareness?
UserDisplayName: Ed_Gravy
ThreadText: # Can an AI have awareness?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-07-16)
  
  I was thinking about the following:
  
  According to Sir Roger Penrose "No computer has any awareness of what it does.".
  
  Now some context to his statement:
  
  Penrose’s argument in summary in his book (The emperor's new mind: concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics) is that:
  
  * We don’t understand physics well enough to use it to describe our brains.
  * We don’t understand the mind well enough to create a framework capable of accommodating human consciousness.
  * Since our minds do not operate ‘computationally’ and are non-algorithmic, our intelligence, therefore, can’t be recreated by computers ([Source](https://projectqsydney.com/roger-penrose-versus-the-world/)).
  
  Let's look at the latest controversy started by a Google engineer who claimed that `Lambda` is self aware. But, then I came across Searle’s Chinese Room and realized that Lambda is not self aware.
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/3Bq2S.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/3Bq2S.png)
  
  Then there are other self learning AIs like `OpenAIFive` that was really good in playing DOTA2.
  
  But how do we know this AI understands what it's doing? If not then is there a possibility that a hypothetical AGI in future might be aware of its actions?
  
  As a note I will add that the brain is still a big mystery and there's no unanimous consensus on a single definition of consciousness. And I think every definition out there is just a combination of thought and faith/belief. And Penrose as of lately does however thinks that there might be a connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics.
  
  **Tags:** philosophy, agi, artificial-consciousness, imagination
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2022-07-17. Score: -3
  
  Are kids conscious?
  
  I always say that if a human can do it, and AI will be able to do it. There is nothing special to us: no magic, no soul. We will eventually crack intelligence. I personally don't even bother with the term "conscious". It doesn't mean much.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Whilst I agree with the sentiment, this answer doesn't really engage with the question as asked. Stack Exchange is not a discussion forum, and we're not looking for opinions.  
  > **username_1**: @NeilSlater Aren't you asking in the wrong place then?  
  > **username_2**: I am not asking anything. The OP has given references that they are trying to understand and resolve, and a good answer would reference and/or address them, or bring up equivalent references that the OP could use to understand the subject further. This answer so far expresses a personal opinion. I don't disagree with it, but I think it is not a good quality answer for our site in its current form.  
  > **username_3**: You are assuming functionalism. So this answer is just an opinion. I know this is an extremely popular viewpoint, especially among scientists, but you shouldn't make the mistake to think somehow that it's a "proven fact" or anything of the sorts.  
  
  ---
  
  