Genady

... an artificial device ...

So, what did you find out for answer to my question, Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificial device to have consciousness?

Here is the difference: you are curious if a catapult and your toilet seat are conscious, but I am not curious about this. I am curious, if there is a law of nature that forbids any of them to be conscious?

You assume that they attempted to produce a conscious device. But I don't assume this. They produce a device that does something else. We are just curious, Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

The question of how to know if the catapult, or other device, is or isn't conscious may come later. If there is a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness, then we know that it is not conscious, and the 'how' question is irrelevant. That is why the first question is: Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

They build a device with whatever knowledge they have. Like people build computers, networks, quantum computers, space stations, Mars probes, etc. They build what they can. So, somebody builds a device the best they could. It does something. They know that they don't have a complete model, but they have a question: Is there a law of nature that forbids this device to have consciousness?

The crux of the issue is in the eye of the beholder. To me, the crux of the issue is in this question: Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and constructed device to have consciousness? Here is a situation to compare. Somebody builds a very fast-moving device. There is a law of nature that forbids this device to move faster than light regardless of its design and construction. Now, somebody builds a very sophisticated device. Is there a law of nature that forbids this device to have consciousness?

I see that you don't want to answer my question. It shows that you are a troll. There is no point to continue.

How to find out if it has consciousness or not is a different question and I am not asking it. What I am asking is a simpler question: Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

No, I don't presume the answer. I presume that humans have designed and built some device, which is quite a common practice. We don't know yet if it has consciousness. Then we turn it on. Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

I am not ignoring that. But my question refers to the final outcome, i.e., after the device was designed and built, when it sits there in the lab and is turned on: Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

It surely appears like you're looking for an excuse not to answer my question. It is a Yes/No question: Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and built device to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

There is no conflation. I didn't use the terms "artificial consciousness" or "natural consciousness" anymore. You can call it whatever you like. My questions is, In a longer form, Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificially designed and built device to have consciousness which functions according to the laws of nature?

I did not refer to occurring naturally, but to functioning naturally, i.e., according to the laws of nature. When I said "natural phenomenon" I referred to the latter. So, the question is still open: Is there a law of nature that forbids artificially designed and built device to have a naturally functioning consciousness?

It is called artificial because it is intentionally designed and built by humans. Similarly, an automobile is an artificial thing, and it runs on completely natural physical and chemical phenomena.

Artificial consciousness would obey the laws of nature. This makes it a natural phenomenon.

I've seen these in your other post. You have called them there, "laws" because you were asked about "laws". Now you call them "principles" because you are asked about "principles." In any case, they are neither scientific laws, nor scientific principles you are asked about, but generic statements in logic and philosophy. They only help avoid errors in thinking, but they do not forbid any natural phenomena.

You're not arguing, you're asserting. "X is true because I said so." - Many people in this forum If it is impossible in principle, then there should be a principle that forbids it. In all your arguments I did not see identification of such principle. If such principle does not exist, then the thing is in principle possible.

An artificial selection for corals is going on in the Bonaire Marine Park: Coral Disease Is Causing Changes To Restoration Strategy In Bonaire - DeeperBlue.com

Impractical, maybe. But impossible in principle it's certainly not.

AFAIK, this view is supported and further developed by Gerard 't Hooft (e.g., [1405.1548] The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (arxiv.org)). I like this approach more than the many-worlds interpretation.

I want to mention something technical about the book, Quantum Sense and Nonsense. At the end of the appendix 5A it says, The last part of the statement is simply incorrect: the state phiup*PHI1+phidown*PHI2 does not mean the state phiup+phidown, which a superposed wave function of “the pointer being up” and “the pointer being down” would've been.

My grandfather. He did not really resist, just said some things here and there. It was enough for a neighbor to report him, for the "legal system" to find him guilty and to send him to gulag where he disappeared, to detach one of two rooms in the apartment where his family lived and to give it to the neighbor.

Is the past necessarily bad? I had so many wonderful experiences in the past, I don't want to leave behind the memories of them. I happily carry my past with me into the present and into the future.

The "legal system" in the USSR was just a means of the government (= the Party) to execute its policies.