this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2025
406 points (99.0% liked)
The Shitpost Office
339 readers
1005 users here now
Welcome to The Shitpost Office
Shitposts processed from 9 to 5, with occasional overtime on weekends.
Rule 1: Be Civil, Not Sinister
Treat others like fellow employees, not enemies in the breakroom.
- No harassment, dogpiling, or brigading
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, sexism, etc.)
- Respect people’s time and space. We’re here to laugh, not to loathe
Rule 2: No Prohibited Postage
Some packages are simply undeliverable. That means:
- No spam or scams
- No porn or sexually explicit content
- No illegal content
- NSFW content must be properly tagged
If you see anything that violates these rules, please report it so we can return it to sender. Otherwise? Have fun, be silly, and enjoy the chaos. The office runs best when everyone’s laughing.... or retching over the stench, at least.
founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why? Why could there not be a non-organic consciousness?
Going to take it a step further and say artificial life is just organic life with extra steps.
The concept of robots that continued to evolve post creators is not new to scifi.
In some ways our own body is simply an emergent complex machine of regenerative biodegradable micro hardware.
There maybe could, but it would be a different one from the person. A second consciousness that was copied.
To my knowledge we are nowhere close to being able to actually transfer a consciousness
Of course we aren't close. But the above poster was making a categorical statement that consciousness must be biological.
The premise behind the videogame SOMA.
Exactly! One of my favorite game stories to date.
The only consciousness we have ever encountered is organic in nature - speculation on non-organic forms of consciousness is pretty much esoteric.
Ie, it depends on your religious beliefs.
Before airplanes, the only form of flight was organic. This was also a firmly held religious belief.
Our ignorance doesn't mean something isn't possible. It just means we don't know if it is possible.
That doesn't help your argument at all - flight was being demonstrated long, long before humans even existed to observe it. Can you say the same for non-organic consciousness?
I don't know about you, but I haven't seen too many scientists rushing to find ways of measuring the consciousness of rocks.
You are making my point. For millenia, we had examples of organic flight, yet many believed we couldn't mimic that, and some thought it would be an affront to God to try, as it implied his perfect creation was lacking. And yet, now people fly every day.
No, there are no examples of inorganic consciousness at this time, but the same was true for flight 200 years ago. And we have a number of examples of organic consciousness. Scientists know better than to look for conscious rocks, just like the Wright brothers knew better than to look for flying rocks.
So where is your millenia's worth of proof that inorganic consciousness is a thing? Do you have any proof that any mountain range on earth has managed consciousness in the last few hundreds of billions of years?
No, that's not true. The Chinese have been making sky lanterns since the 3rd century BC - and doing so in a way that no organism on earth has managed (as far as I'm aware). So please stop with the useless "everybody once believed the earth was flat" nonsense.
Correct. Your (so-called) "smartphone" is about as "conscious" as my rusty garden shears.
No, but to prove your point you will have to. I also have no idea why you're so willing to die on this hill, because, even if you do manage to find a conscious rock that consciousness will still not function like software.
You will never prove a rock is conscious, just like you will never prove another human is conscious. You can only know your own consciousness. You can logically imply other humans (and other animals) are also conscious, but you cannot know it.
And? None of this information is useful to me (or anyone else, either).
True. But it makes any discussion like the one you were arguing rather pointless.
I have no idea why everyone here absolutely insists on having this thoroughly pointless argument with me at all. I merely stated that which should be obvious - consciousness is not software - and lots of people were, apparently, offended by that because a bunch of tech bros pretended it does.
But consciousness could easily be a manifestation of 'software'. You can't know. You can't know what it is; you can't even prove it exists outside of your own experience. So when you make definitive statements like that, you will often get people pointing out that you are wrong. It's not a matter of being offended any more than being offended at any untruth being spread as if fact.
Why? Because we invented software? Viewing human consciousness as software says a lot more about the early 21st century viewer than it does human consciousness - pretty much in the same way that viewing human physiology as purely mechanical says a lot more about the early 20th century viewer than it does human physiology.
Let's be clear... there is no indication - never mind evidence - that human consciousness works like software. In spite of that, it seems to be a holy cow belief for plenty of people here. And I'd argue that the reason why that is is far, far more relevant than the "consciousness-vs.-software" debate itself.
Well I think in this context software can mean a set of flexible procedureal instructions being followed by a more rigid hardware framework. Parts of the human brain are like software (re-wireable links and learned timings), and parts are hardware (as grown from birth, mostly independent of stimulus). A computer is also hardware (cpu) and software. An AI neural network is just a big matrix of interrelations between nodes which software can run as a network, much like the human brain is a big set of neurons that runs as a network. Obviously the human brain is more complicated than the current structural basis for AI now as the human brain has other feedback mechanisms. But people are working on modeling these kinds of things and applying them to AI. And AI nets could theoretically get as big or much bigger, representing neural nets larger than our brains. So there's no particular reason AI could not match or surpass human thought power. Both the brain and computer systems are a combination of hardware and software in this context. But computer scientists see the software as a layer on top of the hardware - and inferred or secondarily intelligence comes more as a layer on the software. It doesn't really matter if it's software or hardware anyway as it's just algorithms and the implementation doesn't really matter. Similarly in the brain, there are biological hardware processes and the equivalent of software (dynamically configurable connections). But it can still be seen as an implementation of an algorithm. If consciousness can come out of that, there's no reason that it can't come out of software running on a computer. There is no 'consciousness' mechanism as far as we know - it is a result of having a sufficient complexity of the right kind of algorithmic processing. Or at least, that is a perfect reasonable explanation. It's seemingly unprovable whether it exists in anything other that one's own personal experience; so we simply can't know if another system is actually conscious. But if it acts conscious, it seems like that's about as good a test as we will ever manage. There's no point in gatekeeping the assumption of consciousness of an AI any more than denying the consciousness of another person just because you can't prove it. Unless we identify some sort of biological basis for consciousness that for some reason cannot be copied in a computer based system, there's no good reason to think AIs can't be conscious. One can bring spirituality or religion into it, but that's similarly unprovable and there's no particular reason those things couldn't apply to AI systems if they apply to human brains.
You keep putting your ignorance on display. The elements of flight are self-propelled and directed. Hot air balloons and sky lanterns are not self-directed - they are just floating, which, by the way, jellyfish and other organisms also did for millenia. Gliders and paper airplanes are not self-propelled - they are kept aloft via energy gained from the air and their initial launch.
Note that nowhere have I said that an inorganic or, more broadly, a synthetic consciousness is possible. I have said we don't know enough to say it isn't. Nor have I said how this thing we haven't ruled out will be made. You have been making the bold assertions, not me. So what do you have besides your supreme confidence and bold assertions to back up your claims?
Sky lanterns are self-propelled - as to your other dictate...
...I'm going to tell a glider pilot what they do isn't flying because some pretend-genius edgelordon the internet said so. I hope they get a good chuckle out of it.
The fact that this is what you choose to quibble about shows you're just trying to distract from how silly your arguments are.
I haven't seen any jellyfish in the sky yet. Have you?
It's not a bold thing to assert that something that only exists in the imaginations of tech bros and sci-fi writers is based on a very flawed assumption that has more elements of religiosity to it than anything we can actually observe ourselves.
First, let me correct myself. All of my previous statements refer to powered flight.
And, once again, how is what you said about synthetic consciousness different than powered flight, except 200 years have passed? The only religiosity those tech pros and sci-fi writers you refer to express is that everything we have seen in the physical world follows the laws of nature, and that we can create things that follow those physical laws to achieve behavior we see in nature, such as powered flight and (the illusion of) consciousness.
You mean... apart from the fact that we have had proof of it's possibility for millions of years?
No, I'm afraid that the idea that consciousness works like software is deeply rooted in the religious idea that the body and soul is separate from each other - in spite of the fact that reality tells us a much, much different story. If you think consciousness works like software, you might just as well believe disembodied spirits are floating around graveyards - both beliefs fundamentally require the same view of consciousness.
If your speculation is that consciousness is rooted in the hardware, then synthetic consciousness is an engineering problem, and humanity is very good at solving engineering problems. The fact is, the only thing scientists have found that is really different between the neurons in simple life forms such as jellyfish and us is the level of complexity, hence the speculation of consciousness being emergent behavior. Again, I don't know, and I haven't heard of scientists definitively knowing the source of consciousness, either, which is why I continue to maintain that we don't know if we can create synthetic consciousness because it's really hard to make something if you don't know how it works. As far as our current crop of tech bros, they seem to be relying on the idea of emergent behavior, hence the need for ever-more-complex artificial intelligence. I think they're behaving like cargo cults, building something that superficially resembles the thing they want and hoping it just starts to mystically work. Them being wrong, just like cargo cults and airplanes, doesn't mean it isn't possible to create a synthetic consciousness.
That's not my speculation at all. We are not hardware. Organisms do not function like machines.
We know the source of consciousness - it's organic. It's rooted in our physical existence as organisms. What scientists want to understand is the "how" part... and we'll never understand it if we think of it as an engineering/design problem because evolutionary processes reqires neither engineering nor design. In fact, I'd argue that this level of complexity is impossible to achieve through engineering and/or design processes.
You may continue not knowing if you wish... but it's a very mundane non-mystery as far as I'm concerned.
You're assuming that consciousness is what they want... I'd say that's an assumption that is not based on the true interests the parasite class has. Their interests is in control - not creating consciousness.
Engineering is applied physics, and physics is how the universe works (limited by our understanding of it, of course). Organisms follow physics just as much as any engineered device or structure.
So who applied the physics to create a living, pulsating jellyfish?
Who applies the gravity to that jellyfish? Same answer. Newton didn't invent gravity, and it still exists even if you don't understand. Gravity affects that jellyfish as much as it affects me. Newton gave me the formulas to describe it.
So gravity is an engineer?
I don't know if this a comprehension issue or trolling, but either one is a problem for you to fix, not me. Good luck out there.
You hitting rock-bottom with your argument does not constitute a comprehension issue on my part.
My disengagement on this discussion isn't due to my lack of ideas or capability to explain them, but due to my lack of belief in your ability or desire to grasp them. This was implied in my previous comment, but even that level of subtlety appears to be beyond you.
You're disengagement is because you aren't willing to make an "intelligent design" argument, despite the fact that your own reasoning have left that the only option open to you. Once you claim that engineering and evolution is (somehow) the same process there is nowhere else left to go.
Speculation on organic consciousness is pretty much esoteric, too, given that science can’t even reach a consensus on a definition of “consciousness” yet.
For that matter, the scientific boundary between “organic” and “inorganic” is really fuzzy.
I don't disagree. I just don't see any reason for even an esoteric basis to speculate that consciousness is in any way analogous to computer software simply because "we invented this thing so we must apply it's logic to ourselves." It smacks of the "machine" view of how the human body works that became prevalent in medicine after industrialisation - and even today it is still a way of understanding human physiology that causes far more problems than it solves.
Ie, there's no speculative basis for it.
That’s a different point to the one I was replying to. I was replying to your dismissal of the conversation as esoteric, based on it discussing specifically non-organic consciousness.
That's because everybody arguing with me is conflating me saying that consciousness is not software with an attack on their favourite sci-fi genre (cyberpunk). And they're completely missing the whole point of cyberpunk by doing so, if you ask me.
That’s fine but, again, not the point I was responding to
Yes, and I'm not responding to your original point because, again, I don't disagree with it.