StopOk2967 t1_ja6y2wz wrote on February 27, 2023 at 8:11 AM

Reply to comment by eucIib in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron

I intuitively think that your claim is true but I think your argument doesn't work.

The author would say that "for everything conscious there is a body underlying it". In most of the cases this is (most of) our brain. But that isn't the same as to say that "For every body part: there is a consciousness based on it". Having our legs removed doesn't change our ability to have what the author calls "landscape of joy" or processing feelings.

What you describe is an error in perception of something. The person is still conscious though, as you describe yourself. Conscious of something that isn't there, but nevertheless conscious.

eucIib t1_ja7wtd3 wrote on February 27, 2023 at 2:43 PM

If a person can be conscious of a foot that doesn’t exist, why not a leg? If they can be conscious of a leg that doesn’t exist, why not the entire lower body? If they can be conscious of a lower body that doesn’t exist, why not the torso as well?

See what I’m saying? If you follow this to it’s logical conclusion, you will just have a brain that is conscious of a body it does not have. Now, obviously a human wouldn’t survive without its organs, but how can we assume that this isn’t possible for AI? I’m not saying I’m right, I’m more-so making the claim that the author is being too confident in his argument that AI needs a body to be conscious.

I also find the authors argument for AI not having feelings more compelling than AI not having consciousness, though for some reason he seems to lump them together as if they’re one in the same.

Ghostyfied t1_ja9xbvm wrote on February 27, 2023 at 10:31 PM

Your argument might be right, we can only tell once someone would experience this. And because of the fact that no one has experienced before how it is to be conscious completely without a body (or at the very least, we do not know of such an event) we can not say with certainty that it is possible.
And I think that means that without further knowledge, both your and the authors argument concerning this specific situation could be correct here.