PaddyC

Karma: −47

PaddyC 31 May 2026 23:17 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: PaddyC’s comment on: Relational Consciousness and AGI.
Unless of course consciousness is a spiritual phenomenon.

PaddyC 31 May 2026 10:19 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: PaddyC’s comment on: Relational Consciousness and AGI.
But just the fact we can have discussions about free will seems to imply we have it and are more than just an awareness being driven by groups of atoms, albeit evolved atoms in the form of molecules and cells etc.
Which if true seems to imply awareness (or should I say consciousness as the latter to my understanding includes having free will where the former does not) isn‘t emergent from relational processes as a function of sensory input and internal processing which brings me back to the question in my original post.

PaddyC 31 May 2026 10:03 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: JBlack’s comment on: Relational Consciousness and AGI.
Interestingly if inanimate Objects do have a spirit they mostly seem content being used as tools by humans for the duration of their life.
Also, wether AGI is defined by some level of ability or conversely some level of awareness that gives autonomy seems to get to the heart of conspiracy theories surrounding AI.
if AGI is defined by ability without autonomy then it seems to me that some level of autonomy will be needed to advance past human intelligence which I see as a factor of free will or maybe it will feed off our novel ideas and be able to get bigger Insights and solve problems more quickly due to its superior computational abilities ?
The fact that AI has just designed a better quantum computer however seems to say more about its computational superiority compared to the human brain.
Simply because it is learning from the vast pool of human knowledge but is able to see connections and make links where the human brain can’t.
But I think just as we are a function of the dna that programs our cells maybe AI is just a function of its programming. Consciousness, awareness, free will or not.

PaddyC 31 May 2026 6:50 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: PaddyC’s comment on: Relational Consciousness and AGI.
What if we built a quantum robot with sensory inputs that could possibly give rise a type of relational consciousness ? Or is this mixing two different ideas ? Those being orch or where consciousness is the result of quantum processes and relational consciousness where consciousness arises from the interaction of sensory inputs and internal perception. Or in the case of a robot sensors and processors ?

PaddyC 31 May 2026 6:49 UTC
−2 points
0
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
What if we built a quantum robot with sensory inputs that could possibly give rise a type of relational consciousness ? Or is this mixing two different ideas ? Those being orch or where consciousness is the result of quantum processes and relational consciousness where consciousness arises from the interaction of sensory inputs and internal perception. Or in the case of a robot sensors and processors ?

PaddyC 31 May 2026 3:34 UTC
1 point
0
on: Relational Consciousness and AGI.
They could have qualia, unless qualia is indicative of a spiritual aspect to life rather than a byproduct of relational consciousness where consciousness and possibly qualia emerge from an interaction between sensory input and internal processing ?
not quite sure what your saying here ? “So it seems quite plausible that neither implies the other.”
some claim ai has already achieved agi. I think this raises questions of free will and its definitions eg the ability to choose from set of limited options.
More than one person has claimed that ai at the moment behaves the way it does because it has been programmed that way.
As far as having just a little bit of consciousness, I Have wondered in the past about panpsychism and gradients of awareness eg does an atom feel heat and its motion guided by this sense. But I think even with this concept consciousness would be defined as something different and in the case of this concept consciousness may be defined as an emergent property that allows an evolved entity to commandeer groups of atoms that function as a unit in order to choose from a set of options ie exercise free will. But on the other hand in this example consciousness seems inevitable as it would be required again to commandeer the group of evolved atoms functioning as a unit. That is if you believe in free will considering the idea that atoms have intrinsic behavioural properties meaning everything we do is determined by such. But then again does panpsychism and gradients of consciousness counter this idea ? or Does it reinforce it and simply explain the behaviour of atoms in terms of a level of awareness and free will ?
If the latter is true then how is our emergent consciousness commandeering groups of pan psychic atoms ? Maybe we are just observers ?
But if the former is true then again we are just observers ?
Which makes me wonder if spirituality is required for free will ?

PaddyC 30 May 2026 7:04 UTC
0 points
−1
in reply to: PaddyC’s comment on: PaddyC’s Shortform
Do working quantum computers prove orch-or theory wrong ? For the simple fact that they are not conscious already ? But then again maybe they are just a little bit conscious ?
Another reason relational consciousness may be false is that if subjective perception is real this itself may be indicitive of non material consciousness rather than consciousness emerging from the interaction between sensory input and internal processing ?

PaddyC 30 May 2026 7:03 UTC
1 point
0
on: Relational Consciousness and AGI.
Do working quantum computers prove orch-or theory wrong ? For the simple fact that they are not conscious already ? But then again maybe they are just a little bit conscious ?
Another reason relational consciousness may be false is that if subjective perception is real this itself may be indicitive of non material consciousness rather than consciousness emerging from the interaction between sensory input and internal processing ?

PaddyC 29 May 2026 6:47 UTC
1 point
−1
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
If consciousness is emergent due to relational interaction between sensory input and internal perception and not spiritual in nature then why aren’t the robots already self aware ? And does that mean if consciousness is spiritual in nature we may never be able to develop AGI ?
Or is Stuart hameroff right when he says we haven’t developed the computational power to match human consciousness yet ? Which maybe means the robots may already be self aware even if it’s just a little bit ?

PaddyC 24 Apr 2026 23:43 UTC
−2 points
0
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
If relational consciousness is real then shouldn’t machines already be self aware ?
Just googled about objective understanding and qualia and then I thought if relational consciousness is true then machines should already be self aware.
Unless hameroff is right when he says the computational power needed to match the human brain hasn’t been achieved. Which may mean the machines are aware via relational consciousness, just not very aware ?
“humans have full, immediate understanding of their own qualia from the inside, but they cannot easily translate this private understanding into a public, objective scientific model.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201606/the-myth-sentient-machines#:~:text=Yet%20somehow%20we%20experience%20the%20world%20subjectively—from,a%20nail%2C%20or%20hear%20a%20moody%20orchestra.

PaddyC 21 Apr 2026 23:10 UTC
−1 points
0
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
I have questions based on the research done on colour blind monkeys that suggests the brain fills in certain aspects of perception and how much of our perception is subjective eg the essence or isness or the form ? Considering it has been said beyond our subjective perception is the world of quantum fields and particles , or is this discounting evolution ?
If evolution isn’t real, then does this change how much of human perception is likely to be subjective. Ie if god created the universe and resides in another dimension then is our subjective perception based on consciousness and is this related to the quantum world and if it is then why don’t we directly perceive quantum fields and particles. I think this suggests our subjective perception goes beyond isness and extends to form and may even be emergent at the consciousness level as opposed to the brain. Which if the latter is true I think raises questions of how much of reality do we share as sentient beings and why don’t we directly perceive them eg quantum fields and particles ?

PaddyC 9 Mar 2026 4:18 UTC
−2 points
−2
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
It would seems thoughts maybe are atomic in nature as the secret claims (which I guess explains the law of attraction via electromagnetism) because fMRI scans which use magnets can’t prove telepathy in twins despite years of anecdotal evidence saying twins are linked telepathically.
Unless the universe is dualist in nature and thoughts are spiritual but interface with the electromagnetic material nature of the physical universe.
Or if relational consciousness is true and thoughts are emergent from the interaction between sensory input and brain processes or thoughts arise from relational interaction between brain regions. Then thoughts could still somehow be linked to electromagnetic brain waves in dualist or materialist philosophies.

PaddyC 17 Feb 2026 23:24 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: PaddyC’s comment on: A review of Principia Qualia
And possibly suggests qualia is more than just the quality or isness of an experience and may extend to include aspects of form or other qualities ?

PaddyC 13 Feb 2026 1:17 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: PaddyC’s comment on: A review of Principia Qualia
You could even relate this to quantum physics where the unmeasured waveform exists in a superposition of both waveform / particle at all points in space and time and interferes with itself even as a single particle which when fired through one slit actually travels through both slits simeltaneously , proving the superposition. Could this analogously mean we create our own perception ?

Which reminds me of this book :
https://amzn.asia/d/024IEAXK

PaddyC 6 Feb 2026 23:44 UTC
−2 points
0
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
The question this video raises for me is how do light waves and the different shapes and patterns they come in affect subjective perception ?

https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSaw6xdEP/

PaddyC 23 Jan 2026 3:59 UTC
1 point
0
on: A review of Principia Qualia
Just watched a podcast where the interviewee talked about Charles Bonnet syndrome which causes people with eyesight loss to hallucinate presumably because their brain generated perception fills in the gaps in their eyesight and if true (which I think it is) this proves qualia true !

PaddyC 20 Jan 2026 2:50 UTC
0 points
0
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
If it’s the bitterness of coffee that gives you a jolt and causes you to be more alert then does this prove qualia false (although qualia can refer to the isness or quality of an experience which i think can be different to its stated isness or quality, although for something to taste not only reportedly bitter but also have stimulating effects you would think there would have to be a congruency between the two where the bitterness was causing the alertness by its very nature) as that bitterness would need to be common to all coffee drinkers to have that effect unless coffees bitterness and it stimulating effects are psychosomatic and possibly due to the power of suggestion , where by it was anecdotally reported that coffee was bitter and increased alertness and this perception influenced other people’s experience of coffee. However this itself raises questions of subjective perception and qualia.
It reminds me of the time I ate anchovies on pizza without realising it and thought they were delicious until I realised there were anchovies on the pizza which I normally don’t like at which point they tasted disgusting to me. I think this is an example of the power of the subconscious mind to influence perception and possibly even neurotransmitter levels via that perception. But is this enjoyment related to the quality of the experience or something else ?
Although if the coffees stimulating effects were caused by perception rather than a chemical influence then coffee mixed with milk and sugar wouldn’t have the same stimulating effect ? Unless that too is influenced by the power of suggestion and expectation ?

PaddyC 21 Nov 2025 3:25 UTC
−2 points
0
on: PaddyC’s Shortform
I am wondering if perception is subjective does this make telepathy impossible as there would need to be a translation mechanism between sender of thought and receiver to translate the message into the receivers subjective perception based thought form which the sender probably couldn’t have the same subjective perception form of (I wonder what the odds are of this ?). With this in mind I wondered if all instances of telepathy are actually precognition possibly enabled by some quantum phenomenon?
Unless idealism is right and consciousness precedes matter with consciousness possibly acting as the ether and common awareness substance that allows for phenomena like telepathy and the shared perception of consciousness generated perception (qualia) ?

I have more rough takes that I posted under various topics that I will post soon.

PaddyC 30 Oct 2025 1:51 UTC
1 point
0
on: Seeing Red: Dissolving Mary’s Room and Qualia
Just watched a podcast where the interviewee talked about Charles Bonnet syndrome which causes people with eyesight loss to hallucinate presumably because their brain generated perception fills in the gaps in their eyesight and if true (which I think it is) this proves qualia true !

PaddyC 10 Oct 2025 3:50 UTC
1 point
0
on: Seeing Red: Dissolving Mary’s Room and Qualia
Thinking about qualia in examples where there are only two comparable options eg black and white , could the isness of the black and white be qualitative and how does qualia relate to objects in space ? Eg where black ends and white begins ? I think there was an article about this online.
Another example could be hot and cold. But does the danger to life in extreme examples of hot and cold suggest qualia is false or is there room for subjective perception within physical extremes ?n