Genady

Yes, perhaps it does not understand any of that library. However, it behaves as if it does. People are different in that they do understand the meaning. They are not different in that they also behave as if they do (although they usually in fact do).

My understanding is that the context an AI has is the (almost) entire library of texts and images accumulated by humans.

Yes, this might be a problem. I don't know what we can do in this case. OTOH, may be the problem is more specific, i.e., a different understanding of how the current AI works. In this case, the problem could be cleared out.

What do you mean here?

Who brought us into existence? //x-posted with the above

Not necessarily. It's basically a Newtonian universe with everything non-Newtonian in this universe being replaced by something else. Feynman's original idea of antiparticles was that they are particles moving back in time.

Such a universe would have almost nothing in common with this one. No particles as we know them, no gravity as we know it. No electricity and magnetism as we know them. No light, friction, chemistry, etc. Maybe "it" wouldn't be a "universe" as we understand this word. For example, such a mathematical construction is perhaps possible. I don't think that would necessarily contradict something that we already know.

My emphasis is that it is not only time. It does involve distance.

The philosopher and its name don't matter, but I wonder what this postulate is based on. People do successfully communicate with animals. Different animals do successfully communicate with each other. I think, we/they have enough in common for some / a lot of mutual understanding. PS. Perhaps it's time to split this thread.

Right. However, this restriction applies to the combination of distance and time rather than only to time.

Yes, it is. I think that the biggest obstacle in this area is that we cannot experiment on humans.

This dissimilarity makes a big difference. When the phenomena are repeatedly observable, research plans can be set, tools and methods can be designed, and the new observations can be executed. Otherwise, until there are defined next steps, calls for farther investigations are pointless. I've asked this question before and all I got was to look for IR sources in the Kuiper Belt.

I don't insist that it is discrete. In case it is a continuum, the question can be stated as, how does the child development progress from not conscious to conscious? Also, when does the child become as conscious as an adult?

I disagree. There are several suggestions. We don't have yet tools or data to test them. Again, I think this is incorrect. Several suggestions exist for both. Data keep being accumulated. In all three cases, energies, times, and distances involved are such that we cannot make direct experiments. Thus, the slow process of collecting observational data is our only way to make progress in these domains. But the phenomena are there, the observations are repeatable, and the research goes on.

This brings up another interesting question. When does a developing child become conscious? PS. I realize that this question is completely OT.

Yes, we'll see. My main lesson from this discussion is that the question is not one of science, but rather one of social acceptance.

And it will be up to experts to decide when it is tested enough to make the decision?

How does it help experts to decide if a machine is conscious or not? It is the "other organism".

You did not say it, but the statement, might make an impression that causality sets a restriction on time travel, but not on space travel. I want to point out that space travel is also restricted by causality. If you are on Earth and your grandfather is on Moon, and you travel there in half a second and kill him, the causality is violated.

In both cases, a machine and the bees, we use ourselves as a reference. In both cases, we don't know the subjective experience of the object, a machine or the bees. While using ourselves as reference, the expert people cannot decide if bees are conscious or not.

Well, expert people cannot agree if bees are or are not conscious, for example.

I see a problem with 2c. If we find a difference, then it failed the test, and we know that it is not conscious. But as long as we don't find a difference, we don't know if there is a difference or there is not. How do we decide that it passed the test?

The difference is that in the case of a telescope there is only one history and no time loop is possible.

But if you can travel in space so that you reach Moon in 0.5 s, causality is violated.

I have many questions about this statement. Here are some: 1. Does it apply only to "a machine"? If so, what is "a machine"? If not, what else it is applicable to? 2. Is being conscious necessary, sufficient, or both for us being unable to discern the difference functionally? IOW: 2a. If we can't discern the difference functionally, then it is conscious? = If it is not conscious, then we can discern the difference functionally? 2b. If it is conscious, then we can't discern the difference functionally? = If we can discern the difference functionally, then it is not conscious? 2c. Both 2a and 2b? 3. What is "the difference functionally"?