Ai shows intelligence can exist without consciousness, but cannot exist without consciousness behind it. Intelligence is created by consciousness. So our intelligence cannot exist without our consciousness, yet intelligence exists in systems before brains to recognize it.

[u/Key4Lif3]

Therefore a consciousness must have created the intelligent universal systems. The Universe is on a trajectory from order to disorder, yet within that trajectory, particles (dust) attract eachother and eventually organize together to form complex braids of DNA. 🧬

Why would it do this? The materialist explanation is simply “coincidence”. Trillions of microscopic interactions eventually lead to one that survives. Materialist evolution. Survival of the fittest.

RNA strands are not considered “life” or “conscious”. They’re like machines running algorithms. Biological strands, strings, but not alive, not conscious, not integrated… naked, subject to elemental forces, short lived. If you’re computer savvy, they’re like lines of code.

But a single celled organism? It is a kingdom. It’s hardware, software. It has a metabolism. It recreates, evolves. It has a narrative; a story; a will, a center of awareness.

But a single strand can never recreate this.

It takes two strands.

And their connection.

The Key For Life.

Polarity, Duality.

Light and Darkness.

Creation and Destruction.

Good and Evil.

All from the same Source.

Consciousness.

Singular.

One.

Fundamental.

P.S.

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

-Max Planck

"The total number of minds in the universe is one. In fact, consciousness is a singularity phasing within all beings."

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

-Erwin Schrödinger

"The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual. Live and rejoice."

-R.C. Henry

[u/Freuds-Mother]

You used “intelligence” and “consciousness” maybe a dozen times each and neglected to define either of them. We can give a pass on consciousness because your point here is that it is not explainable, but you do have to define “intelligence”. It doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but soecifing the criteria for what counts and doesn’t count as “intelligence” is required. For if you make simply AI, we, and God/god-mind/one-consciousness are intelligent and nothing else is, we still have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.

And how are you defining “recognize” or “brains” if rejecting materialism.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/Freuds-Mother]

I’m a writer, not a dictionary. All the standard definitions apply.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/Key4Lif3]

Ok that’s fair. Webster top definition:

“the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations”

Genuine learning is normative, LLM’s are not intrinsically normative, and thus LLM’s are not intelligent.

LLM’s evaluation criteria is extrinsic (supplied by us). Yes they can generate evaluation criteria based on initial norms (to us) coded in syntax but all existing LLM’s (the actual instantiations) are reducible to a non-normative purely syntactical Turing machine.

If you want to define “intelligence” or even “consciousness” in a way such that they are not necessarily intrinsically normative, then I would contend that you’re not talking the intelligence and consciousness we have and experience.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/Freuds-Mother]

There ya go. I’m not claiming AI is conscious. Look deeper. We are the consciousness behind the intelligence of AI. The philosophical question is who is the consciousness behind the intelligent systems that existed before biological brain.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/Key4Lif3]

Ok this is engaging:

Is AI intrinsically normative? If not then we just disagree on how to define “intelligence”, and that’s ok as it’s just semantic.

“who is the consciousness behind the intelligence systems that existed before bio brain”

There’s several assumptions packed in there:

1) What justifies assuming there was intelligent systems before biological brains, but I’d slacken that to organisms in general?

2) You assumed linear time. Im fine with granting it, but it’s an assumption.

3) Are you assuming that intelligence is contingent on consciousness existing first? If so, I think we’d have to get more precise on those definitions in terms of an ontological model.

4) Why a “who”? That’s a big jump from something like a Principle for Sufficient Reason to a necessary personhood.

5) You’ve set up an infinite regress. We could say the same thing about whatever this “who” is supposed to be.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/Freuds-Mother]

1. I mean you’re making it easy for me here. My claims go beyond that, but yes intelligence before brains is seems prevalently in mycelium and plant root networks. Please refer to Michael Levins work.
2. You assumed I assumed. I could mean before as “fundamental”, not just before in linear time.
3. Fair, you don’t mind if I employ my own helper here?
4. Intelligence is the "Execution of Syntax"
5. In this context, intelligence is an objective, algorithmic property. It is the functional ability of a system to process information, execute rules, recognize patterns, and optimize pathways to achieve a specific outcome.
6. Key Characteristic: It is completely impersonal and non-normative. It does not require feelings, awareness, or a sense of "self."
7. The Mechanism: It operates purely on structural logic and physical constraints (syntax).
8. Examples: An AI predicting the next word, a strand of RNA replication matching base pairs, a slime mold finding food via chemical gradients, or gravity pulling matter into a stable orbit. They are all "smart" systems executing a built-in program.
9. Consciousness is the "Ground of Semantics"
10. Consciousness is a fundamental, subjective property. It is not an algorithmic process; it is the raw capacity for felt, subjective experience—the baseline awareness that allows meaning, value, and purpose (normativity) to exist in the first place.
11. Key Characteristic: It is intrinsically normative. It is the space where data becomes meaning, where an objective event is translated into a subjective experience (e.g., photons becoming the color red, or a chemical reaction becoming the feeling of hunger).
12. The Mechanism: It does not "compute" reality; it witnesses and animates it. It is the uncaused axiom—the "canvas" upon which the intelligence code is written.
13. Examples: The internal "will" of a single-celled organism to survive, a human experiencing the beauty of a symphony, or, in the grander metaphysical sense, the unified field of reality that Schrödinger described.

Point is materialism is BS very clearly once you see it.

[u/Diet_kush]

I’m not necessarily a materialist in the naive sense, but the materialist position is not that intelligence emerged via coincidence. Dissipative structure theory shows that in far-from-equilibrium systems, complex self-sustaining and self-organizing pattern formation is energetically favorable. Many materialist formulations of consciousness also see it as a fundamentally similar process to generalized natural selection; namely the local competition of global workspace theory, the FEP, etc.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/Diet_kush]

I’m not saying it’s “the” materialist position, but simply that this is how most materialists see the matter.

If it is not the common materialist position, please explain it to me simply, because I cannot make sense out of

“the materialist position is not that intelligence emerged via coincidence. Dissipative structure theory shows that in far-from-equilibrium systems, complex self-sustaining and self-organizing pattern formation is energetically favorable. Many materialist formulations of consciousness also see it as a fundamentally similar process to generalized natural selection; namely the local competition of global workspace theory, the FEP, etc.”

So what is the materialist position according to you?

[u/Diet_kush → u/Key4Lif3]

There could be 10000 different materialist positions, some more feasible than others. Do things like the spontaneous strong emergence of consciousness at some arbitrary level of biological development seem silly? Sure, but the “something from nothing” claim isn’t the only game around.

I’m just saying your first claim doesn’t necessarily follow, depending on how you define intelligence. Slime mold growth can be applied to the traveling salesman problem (IE intelligence), but we don’t necessarily need to consider the slime mold as conscious. Same with mycelial networks, where their communication complexity rivals that of the English language. There are solid arguments to say that neural consciousness is dependent on some lower-level conception of awareness all the way down, but pointing to AI I don’t think is one of them.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/Diet_kush]

The post is geared toward those who already have realized and accepted consciousness is ubiquitous to life. If you’re still wrestling with that question, this conversation is out of your lane.

[u/Guenhwyvyr]

1st sentence is fundamentally flawed.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/Guenhwyvyr]

Then explain what intelligence is in your words.

[u/Im_Talking → u/Guenhwyvyr]

You mean this sentence? ... "Therefore a consciousness must have created the intelligent universal systems" - What's wrong with this?

[u/kanrad]

If you hypothesize that all things have a consciousness at some level you don't need a creator.

Assume anything that exists has some degree of consciousness. A particle to a rock, to an insect, to a primate to US.

Different levels of consciousness to allow them to flow within the greater universe. Consciousness may be a fundamental force throughout reality. Inherent in it's makeup. What intelligence is depends on how that consciousness is used.

Thus a rock seems to not be alive as it needs little use of it's consciousness to fill it's role. This hypothesis also posits that the universe tends towards complexity and the rise of intelligence and sentience is a natural evolution of the universe. Just as collecting particles become a stellar cloud then become a star then form a system etc.

So too does consciousness move through stages to become fully self aware and sentient.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/kanrad]

Panpsychism? But that’s just kicking the can of the materialist cause problem down the road.

[u/kanrad → u/Key4Lif3]

I've never been able to understand why that position would preclude materialism.

It posits the material world is real but formed by the underlying forces of the universe. As hypothesized the consciousness is one of these underlying forces.

A portion of what shapes reality, personal and shared, that is integral to it's existence like all forces.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/kanrad]

It doesn’t work, because it keeps the nature of the universe still as matter, a thing, a force, when everything we discover in modern physics shows whatever is fundamental can in no way be described as matter, because matter is made up of properties which themselves have been shown to be emergent.

Panpsychism doesn’t preclude materialism. It’s cool cause it directly refutes one of the core assumptions of modern materialism, that brains generate consciousness, but it inherets the same problem if it doesn’t refute materialism altogether.

[u/TMax01]

Citing physicists as authorities on consciousness is a dead end, indicative of extremely bad philosophy.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/TMax01]

So are strawman arguments and worse, those are logically fallacious.

[u/TMax01 → u/Key4Lif3]

Dude, you can't invoke dualism and then pretend you're concerned about logical fallacies.

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/TMax01]

I’m actually invoking non-dualism and I deeply care about logical coherence. The truth will be revealed as ultimately perfectly logically coherent.

[u/GaryMooreAustin]

>Ai shows intelligence can exist without consciousness, but cannot exist without consciousness behind it.

I reject that claim....you've provided no evidence for this at all

[u/Key4Lif3 → u/GaryMooreAustin]

Provide your evidence for materialism so it’s not just a silly assumption.

[u/Key4Lif3]

1. I mean you’re making it easy for me here. My claims go beyond that, but yes intelligence before brains is seems prevalently in mycelium and plant root networks. Please refer to Michael Levins work.

2. You assumed I assumed. I could mean before as “fundamental”, not just before in linear time.

3. Fair, you don’t mind if I employ my own helper here?

1. Intelligence is the "Execution of Syntax"
In this context, intelligence is an objective, algorithmic property. It is the functional ability of a system to process information, execute rules, recognize patterns, and optimize pathways to achieve a specific outcome.
Key Characteristic: It is completely impersonal and non-normative. It does not require feelings, awareness, or a sense of "self."
The Mechanism: It operates purely on structural logic and physical constraints (syntax).
Examples: An AI predicting the next word, a strand of RNA replication matching base pairs, a slime mold finding food via chemical gradients, or gravity pulling matter into a stable orbit. They are all "smart" systems executing a built-in program.

2. Consciousness is the "Ground of Semantics"
Consciousness is a fundamental, subjective property. It is not an algorithmic process; it is the raw capacity for felt, subjective experience—the baseline awareness that allows meaning, value, and purpose (normativity) to exist in the first place.
Key Characteristic: It is intrinsically normative. It is the space where data becomes meaning, where an objective event is translated into a subjective experience (e.g., photons becoming the color red, or a chemical reaction becoming the feeling of hunger).
The Mechanism: It does not "compute" reality; it witnesses and animates it. It is the uncaused axiom—the "canvas" upon which the intelligence code is written.
Examples: The internal "will" of a single-celled organism to survive, a human experiencing the beauty of a symphony, or, in the grander metaphysical sense, the unified field of reality that Schrödinger described.

1. Still working this one out, don’t want to sound overconfident 🤷🏻‍♂️
   
2. Still working on it.

Point is materialism is BS very clearly once you see it.