Hacker News Reader

Comment by 23B1 | Hacker News Reader

As with all of these discussions, the definition of 'consciousness' is the crux of the argument – and since nobody can agree on that term, we're doomed to talk past each other!

This isn't a bad thing. It's actually the core human question – that of our existence. Stare into a mirror for a few minutes and ask yourself "Why am I me? Why am I here?" and you'll come to the exact same conclusion: unknown and probably unknowable.

View on HN

> This isn't a bad thing.

It's a bad thing when someone can't explain what the word means but also declares that its existence is self-evident and impossible to deny.

But I believe that’s define-able. It’s how much you control your own thoughts. That’s what consciousness is. And it’s a vast, vast scale of opposites with so much variety, that a better picture than a spectrum is needed but I can’t imagine what. but because we have so many senses to become conscious in, we get a fusion of consciousnesses that is probably unique to us.

That's not the same question though. I've answered those questions for myself, but I couldn't tell you what consciousness is or isn't, because that requires language, and language cannot suffice to communicate our personal experiences.

What if a gpt-5 powered robot starts asking these questions after staring in a mirror?

This would be expected unless it is smart enough to solve all of the mysteries of existence, which would be...weird.

This is the correct answer. But left unsaid is the fact that we don't have any objective definition of consciousness yet. I posit that until we do, artificial consciousness if by definition impossible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com