>

AI isn't not actually inteligent. I'm not sure you understand how it's made or how it works, but it has no intelligence whatsoever. It only works in the field it's been made for, it needs training data and has no capacity to protect itself from overfitting and undercutting.
All animals that can reliably pass "the mirror test" are regarded as top intelligence.
So you might be right to believe consciousness is not a product of intelligence, but you got no outliers. What we consistently observe is that higher intelligence brings about a higher chance for consciousness. So until we have valid proof that they are not cause and effect, we may treat them as if they are
I often see people assume humans are conscious because we are more intelligent than other species, but we have already developed AI capable of processing data and making decisions that would dwarf the capabilities of a modern human. Yet, no consciousness as far as we can tell.

I would argue this is kinda faulty reasoning. Everything AI knows how to do is because a human told it how to think through coding. It's not smarter than humans it's just faster. Give a human enough time, and it can do the same calculations.

. The organisms we have found to pass the "mirror test" or even come close are all social animals.

While I agree humans being social have been key throughout our history you kinda disprove yourself by bringing up "mirror test" as the animals that recognize themselves in the mirror are generally regarded as extremely intelligent (Elephants, Pigs, Dolphins, Parrots, and Crows) 
Another thing you brought up is language. Is that not another sign of intelligence right there? Parrots are seen as amazing smart for being able to speak and then look at humans with are insane amount of different languages with their own rules and dialects. >

There is definitely a correlation between intelligence and self awareness, and they likely evolve together. I am just positing that the need to network is what creates the emergent property, not intelligence itself.
Parrots are also very social animals, as are crows, another highly intelligent bird. >

Yeah, that was my point. Every creature that you can argue that has self-awareness is extremely intelligent that's self awareness isn't beside intelligence but directly decended from it. >

I think this might have changed my view. I will adapt it as such:
Adaptations that foster networking (ie, required for social animals) increases intelligence and the ability for self awareness (ie consciousness) to emerge.
---  
A slight difference, essentially just a change in order of how these properties come about. >

I want my damn Delta then! Lol >

∆ friend! >

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Lordofthelounge144 changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

That’s not what anyone is talking about when they are talking about philosophy rather than neurology. 
They mean the hard problem of consciousness which is subjective first person qualia. >

This is wrong from the first sentence.  Consciousness is not limited to humans. >

If you would rather go with the term "sapience" instead, I'm fine with that. What I'm really talking about here is "self awareness" ie, the ability to pass the "Mirror Test" >

The "mirror test" isn't the be all, end all of consciousness testing. In fact, you can train monkeys to pass it reliably if you set it up right:
"Rather than training monkeys to detect an irritant spot, monkeys were trained to touch a spot projected onto a surface in the monkey's close personal space. In an initial training period, monkeys could see the spot directly, as well as seeing its reflection in the mirror, and so could complete the task without using the mirror. Following this training, monkeys failed the classic mark test. 
In a second training period, monkeys' direct view of the spot was obscured, forcing them to use the mirror to complete the task. When given the mark test a second time, monkeys touched their own faces near the spot, thus passing the mark test. 
The authors reasonably conclude that performance on the mark test depends upon an individual’s ability to accurately guide movements using mirrored visual information, and thus failure on the test may not indicate an absence of self-awareness." - Source >

It's a baseline for the emergence of human level consciousness. I never said it was the end all be all, but to progress to human levels of cognition, animals must pass that threshold. >


It's a baseline for the emergence of human level consciousness

And, it sucks as such, and you should not use it as your baseline. Do you think that the monkeys that were trained to pass it via clever design are conscious in the same way humans are? They pass the test reliably after all. 

to progress to human levels of cognition, animals must pass that threshold.

So, no blind animals can ever progress to human levels of cognition? Your statement would mean that sight is a prerequisite to such. >

This is fascinating. Do you have any more links or videos on the topic? >

First of all, there are multiple level of consciousness. A spider, a cat, a gorilla etc. are all conscious, simply on a different level.
As for humans being the best at networking, I would argue that ants, bees and other "hive minds" are better at networking than us.
Edit: I think that a level of consciousness that humans have a certain "level" of intelligence is neccesarry, which AIs don't have yet. AI is very often misunderstood, it mostly works on logic gates, evolution, and other similar algorithms. This makes them excell at works in which it has been trained, but it doesn't understands what's it's doing. >

Its not that humans are better at networking, its that "self awareness" is a product of networking. 
The hive mind is merely another adaptation that enables high levels of networking. >

No machine we have designed yet has come close to the computing power of the human brain. So in that sense you are off. >


It seems to me that consciousness is a product of networking

Okay, but do you accept that others may define consciousness differently, and/or that consciousness could be defined as having a god given soul? What makes you so sure that the way you understand consciousness must be correct? A Socratic philosopher would even go so far as to say you don't and cannot know that what you are positing is correct. >


What is consciousness other than the ability to communicate to oneself? It's a product of language. (...) However, an inner dialogue, and language itself, is a critical adaptation for a social animal.

How do people with no inner monologue fit into your view exactly? >

Are you referring to comatose people? Or brain dead people? At that point, they no longer have consciousness (although some people in comas still do continue to dream and have some level of awareness around them, so they are still to a degree still conscious).
Otherwise, all living humans have some sort of inner dialogue. >

I think you misread this research. "Thinking" itself is an inner monologue. Whether they are conscious of themselves "talking to themselves" is another story. And it's not like people are literally talking to themselves in their mind all day long. But everybody has the ability to do this.  

"The object of my research is not to explore inner speech or inner monologue or whatever you want to call it, but to explore your experience as it actually is," says Hurlburt.

Someone who doesn't have the ability to think is dead or brain dead. >

Can you define what you mean by inner dialogue? Because to me thinking and inner dialogue are different.
Imo “talking to themselves” is the definition of inner dialogue