[ExI] Answering the Hard Problem, with applications to AI Consciousness

[Keith Henson]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 12:35 PM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 3:15 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> I completely agree with John on these points.
>>
>> I also happen to think this is not a useful topic.
>>
>
> Are you signed up to Alco>
>

Since 1984.

When you sign up, do they ask if you are comfortable with a digital
> emulation rather than a resuscitation of your original biological substrate?
>

I don't think so, but it has been a very long time.

I think these questions are pertinent for exactly that reason.
>
> Do substrates matter? At what level of precision is required (molecular,
> neuronal, circuit, or some higher level, etc.)? Will our AI and robot
> companions be conscious, and if so what is the threshold? This is the aim
> of the paper. I think these questions are especially pertinent today.
>
> Did you ever read "The Clinic Seed"? In that story from 20 years ago, I
had people uploaded into a simulated environment. It never occured to me
that a good simulation would be subjectively different from ordinary
physical existence. In the story people moved back and forth between
uploaded and physical state.

Now that you mention it, my thoughts on the topic, even 20 years ago, are
strange indeed. I guess that is the effect of being exposed to Eric
Drexler's nanotech ideas from 1979.

https://terasemjournals.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/henson-chapters-1-2-3-with-bio-no-illustrations.pdf

The Clinic Seed Story starts 6 pages into this document.

A short chunk on topic is here.

  This time the nanomachines didn't infiltrate her brain just to shut it
down, though they did that and reversed the mild damage from shock and low
blood flow. The nanomachines mapped out all her neural circuits and cell
connections. Shortly before her parents entered the clinic the next day
they tentatively restored consciousness, partly in her brain--which was far
below the temperature needed to run on its own--and partly in the haze of
nanomachines that were also simulating input in place of her eyes and ears.

snip

Toward the end of her stay in the clinic, Zaba had an understanding of what
the swarms of repair devices were doing to restore her spinal cord,
patiently teasing out where the nerves should be reconnected across the
gap, replacing cell walls and myelin in the destroyed section, rebuilding
the shattered bone, muscle and connective tissue and fishing out the bullet
fragments down to single atoms of lead. She even had some understanding of
how her mind was being supported in the nano computers that were acting in
place of her very cold brain.

It's only 7000 words, ten minutes to read.

Keith

Jason
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:50 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 9:51 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> *>> I think it would be better to just say consciousness is the way data
>>>>> feels when it is being processed intelligently.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *> I think this would require a lot more specification. Intelligence is
>>>> always indexed to some goal, which the process itself need not be aware of.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Darwinian Evolution, that is to say random mutation and natural
>>> selection, produced us and if it can be said to have a "goal" (and that may
>>> not be the right word to use) it would be to find a way to get as many
>>> genes of an individual as possible into the next generation, although of
>>> course the individual need not be aware of that fact or even that there was
>>> such a thing as a "gene". One thing is certain, there must be a link
>>> between intelligent behavior and consciousness because natural selection
>>> can detect intelligent behavior but it can't directly detect consciousness
>>> any better than we can except in ourselves, and natural selection can't
>>> select for something that it can't see.*
>>>
>>> *I think consciousness must be an inevitable byproduct of intelligence.
>>> We all assume that as an axiom in everyday life, that's why we think our
>>> fellow human beings are conscious most of the time, but not when they're
>>> sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, because when they are under those
>>> conditions they are no longer behaving intelligently.   *
>>>
>>>
>>>> *> Also there is arguably no intelligence when there is no behavior*
>>>
>>>
>>> *If there is no behavior there's no way to tell if something is
>>> intelligent or not. A rock might be smarter than Einstein but it's so shy
>>> it keeps a low profile and never speaks up. I doubt that's true but I can't
>>> prove it's false. The Turing Test is not an infallible test for
>>> intelligence, passing it means it's intelligent but failing it doesn't
>>> necessarily mean it's unintelligent. And it's an even more faulty test for
>>> consciousness, but it's all we've got and all we'll ever have, so we've
>>> just got to make the best of it.*
>>>
>>> *John K Clark*
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260911/5598e9f1/attachment.htm>