So far no machine or device can measure all that the human body contains, so our feeling is more complex, how it changes in a moment!

Marc,

Before engaging in answering this question, a properly defined and delimited description of what consciousness is has to be given. An ambiguous conception for consciousness as given under most descriptions is not subject to experimental verification.

Dear Arturo,

Thanks to your added reply. However these are my replies: (i) Are my description unproperly defined and delimited? (ii) Can consciousness be defined notwithstanding it is immaterial, accordingly not limited? (iii) And (accordingly) not subject to experimental verification?

Thanks again for your reply upon these points (i),(ii), and (iii). Marc.

If they are programmed to see consciousness, then only they can see, to some extent, otherwise, I don't think so, these machines can do anything on their own.

I don't think so.

Consciousness is uniquely a human privilege involving a state or quality of awareness or of being aware of external objects or mindful perception of things happening within oneself. Clearly, we can program computers for becoming responsive to their surroundings but not those affective, cognitive, and biological events happening inside a human being. Human robots may have human like features (e.g., eyes) ,but they do not see things exactly like a human being . In point if fact, the way they interpret their surroundings cannot be integrated with both soul-conscious and self-conscious internal agents.

Marc,

Let us start that the approach to consciousness can be approached from:

1)mentalist

2)Dualist

3)materialist

Each of these have an interpretation of what consciousness is.

Discarding the mentalist for which there is no possibility of constructing an experiment that could satisfy his definition still leaves us with another problem. This problem is best put forth by Chalmers:

"So to explain why and how brains support consciousness, an account of the brain alone is not enough; to bridge the gap, one needs to add independent 'bridging' laws"[1]

This even Chalmers concedes that it has problems

So, I would start from this point and maybe agreeing to some of Chalmers proposal points before moving on.

[1]http://consc.net/books/tcm/searle-response.html

Not really!

Here is a relevant link, please see.

https://www.gaia.com/article/mind-uploading-other-theories-consciousness

No

Not really

Dear replyers (up to now),

[1] Nazia, (a) what if they are not programmed? (b) is contradictory (by whom?)

[2] Oluwaseun: please explain what you do think!

[3] Reza, (a) here are different undefined conceptions: (a1) is identical to ? (a2) what is ? and what is ? and what are ? (b) see [1] (a) and (b).

[4] Arturo, Thanks for the link! However, where are your reply upon my points (i), (ii), and (iii)?

[5] Maham, Thanks for the link! I 'll read it carefully.

[6] Rama and Benhaoua, please explain your replies explicitly.

[7] Ahmadi: until when ?

Thanks in advance for all your replies! Marc.

Marc,

Without agreeing to a philosophical stance we cannot proceed,

so to answer your questions based on this answer:

Question (i) Are my description unproperly defined and delimited?

Answer: Yes, they are not properly defined or delimited from the dualist and materialist perspective due to :

• Lack of a philosophical stance on which to interpret experiments
• You have not defined the laws that Chalmers is referring to

Without these you cannot even start to envision a scientific framework, much less an experiment on which to test a hypothesis.

Question (ii) Can consciousness be defined notwithstanding it is immaterial, accordingly not limited?

Answer: If you are a mentalist that envisions the consciousness as not limited, then there is no reason to further explore the question. If you approach it from any of the other two philosophical points, then yes it is worth engaging in your main question.

Question (iii) And (accordingly) not subject to experimental verification?

Answer: See my respone to ii

Dear Arturo,

Thanks for your added reply. Here are the points of my reply:

-Ad your (Question (i) and your answer thereupon): (a) am I obliged to use your and perspective in my definition and delimitation? (b) in which case does my description lack a philosophical stance? (c) why should a philosophical question be interpreted by experiments? (d) am I obliged to scientificly define the laws that Chalmers is referring to? (e) what do you exactly mean by the allegation that ? (f) am I obliged to use an experiment to be scientific?

-Ad your (Question (ii) and your answer thereupon): (a) what do you exactly and scientificly mean by ? (b) is consciousness limited? please explain me and other readers precisely and scientificly its reasons; (c) why is there no reason to further explore the question? (d) by which do you precisely and scientificly mean? please explain me and other readers! (e) is philosophy not science? please explain me and other readers explicitly!

-Ad your (Question (iii) and your answer thereupon): see my reply -Ad your (Question (i) and your answer thereupon), and -Ad your (Question (ii) and your answer thereupon).

Thanks again for your reply! Marc.

Marc,

I would strongly suggest that you read Chalmers, John Searle, Jerry Fodor and Daniel Dennet (each of theses philosophers differ in views) on these topics (they explain them substantially and are required reading before embarking on any endeavor on trying to sort consciousness).

Based on your question on what is Mentalist, I would suggest you start with the book by Stan Franklin, Artificial Minds.it is an excellent source on which to distinguish between the three broad stances (there are others such as panpsychism and within these there are differences such as views on causation, etc.) and then be able to engage with either of the four.

This is a highly researched area where you need this background before trying to engage in this complex problem. Afterwards, depending on your inclination and definition of consciousness, it might be possible to engage in other areas which are neuroscience, machine learning among others in trying to device possible starting points to explore on such problem

Regards

It can decode your emotions if and only if the robot or machine like computer has been previously programmed.

Only if we think like robots. But we are not very far because there is more and more emphasis on material and e-life and less and less on spirituality and phylosophy. It is not by chance that robots are becoming populars.

No

So far no machine or device can measure all that the human body contains, so our feeling is more complex, how it changes in a moment!

No

Dear repliers,

[1] Arturo: (a) a suggestion is not an obligation; thanks anyway! (b) I understand that according to you this is a problem, so nobody has on lease the only right to tell the truth, including all the authors you mentioned; (c) please use the numbers of my added reply of 2 days ago (for consistency's sake)!

[2] Sobhan: are identical to 'consciousness'?

[3] Zin: thank you for your emphasis on philosophy and spirituality!

[4] Shaden: thanks for your emphasis on !

[5] Steven: please explain further your added reply.

Thanks for all replies! Marc.

Dear Fateh,

Thank you for the reply.

(i) By consciousness I mean what the ancient Greeks called psyche and pneuma. The latter regards conscience. Please see the French word: there is no consciousness, only conscience (spoken out in French).

Consciousness is further not identical to awareness, or feelings etc.

(ii) Your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs sounds very science-fictionally. Please inform me at your earliest convenience when this happens.

Thanks again for the reply. Marc.

YES as its reflected in EEG gamma band i.e. 70 Hz

jerzy

Dear Jerzy,

(a) EEG data is very complex and contains multiple dimensions (time, frequency, testing condition, sensor locations, think pages and pages of squiggly waves on a computer screen, etc.; or do you mean the DOC-Forest? (b) or do you mean that a computer (or robot) can see my consciousness? This would be another story (according to my concise description).

Thanks for adding the answer. Marc.

Dear Ashwan,

Thank you for your clear answer. Marc.

It still machine. Strictly no.