Back

It’s almost like we can’t make a machine conscious until we know what makes a human conscious, and it’s obvious Emergentism is bullshit because making machines smarter doesn’t make them conscious

Time to start listening to Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR theory as the evidence piles up - pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936

You’re right that consciousness and intelligence are not the same. Our language tends to conflate the two.

However, evolution created consciousness over billions of years by emergent factors and no source of specific direction besides being more successful at reproduction. We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could. The big problem would be recognizing it for what it is when it’s here.

@frezik @HawlSera

> We can likely get there orders of magnitude faster than evolution could

[Citation needed]

If I practice trying to shoot hoops every day I’m going to get one in a lot sooner than you will just kicking at the ball every time you walk by.

@WolfLink so you're saying there's a measurable correlation between practicing a skill and getting better at it? Amazing

What's this got to do with the Big Averaging Machine?

Specifically trying to do something will get it done a lot faster than waiting for it to happen by chance.

Yes it is, in fact. Tiny, random variations, which typically take millions of years to end being a noticeable change.

@WolfLink note how nothing there is "trying" to do anything

Exactly my point. I’d expect humans trying to make something will get results on a timescale about a million times faster than evolution.