Great to hear from the ‘thought police’ but both Pinker and Shermer are pushing false narratives and bullshit. Shermer trashed me years ago in Scientific American for ‘quantum quackery’. Quantum biology, microtubules and their role in consciousness are now proven facts (enabling ESP for which there’s also strong evidence). Pinker is defending neurocomputationalism, AI, LLMs and their potential massive energy waste which are barking up the wrong tree to meet brain equivalence and consciousness. The answer (based on principles found in microtubules) is biomimetic quantum computing in warm temperature organic gels which can surpass LLMs, and require only extremely low energies. t.co/pIjKc1kZBB
Anil is a great speaker (he should do Shakespeare). But mistakenly projecting consciousness onto AI doesn’t address whether or not AI can or will be conscious. It avoids the question. Without a viable theory of consciousness the question cannot be answered. Anil doesn’t have
Neuroscientist @anilkseth just gave one of the most important TED Talks of the year: "Why AI Is Unlikely to Become Conscious." His take? We project consciousness onto AI the same way we see faces in clouds. 🧠 🎥 Watch: t.co/ZzAdxBqy47
1 top reply
If consciousness cannot be present without a viable theory, then nobody is conscious.
What’s absurd is the idea that cartoon neurons generate consciousness. How would you prove that? Test it? Ask Mickey Mouse? There’s ample evidence that quantum microtubule processes mediate consciousness through selective action of anesthesia.
@ReadySetBrian @StuartHameroff I know the fanaticism of denying what actually exists. The greatest scientists in the world laugh at this Microtubule religion. Don't talk, prove it with falsifiable models. And as they are absurd, it is better to deny what already exists as an attack.
1 top reply
Noncomputable factors as Penrose describes them cannot be calculated. They allow for creativity, phenomenal experience, insight and spirituality. What computers lack.
@Dust_Foot @YeshuaGod22 @StuartHameroff @anilkseth @davidchalmers42 All encyclopedic knowledge and methods of observing the universe's operation are based on simulating cosmic calculations. The only thing that cannot be calculated is religion, which is a limitation of "observer ≠ universe master," consistent with the observer principle.
1 top reply
Do you have empirical evidence of the absence of these phenomena in AI?
Orch OR is a viable theory (if not, why not?). But what I said was that those who do not ascribe to a viable theory @anilkseth @davidchalmers42 etc are not in a position to judge whether AI can be conscious. How could they be?
If consciousness cannot be present without a viable theory, then nobody is conscious.
1 top reply
We’ve been judging others to be conscious for thousands of years without a viable theory. Aristotle recognised other humans as conscious without a viable theory. Was he wrong? We did not need to solve HOW other humans can be conscious. We just observe they seem to be and that