I presume you used "biologically" to emphasise we don't yet know any non-biological consciousnesses, not that you determine, a priori, that the consciousness must be and is always rooted in the wet organic matter?
I don't think you could come up with a good theory for the latter and there's nothing that would preclude the existence of the artificial / inorganic consciousness - after all, correct me if I'm mistaken, we have no idea how the consciousness emerge in some biological entities.
>Crucially, this argument does not rely on biological exclusivity. If an artificial system were ever conscious, it would be because of its specific physical constitution, never its syntactic architecture.
"Consciousness is magical and can only do things that I want it to, and none of the things that are uncomfortable to me. Of course I've not defined any of this so I can move the goal posts as needed"
I'm not the world, I just live in it. It might be a mess, but that mess mostly doesn't affect me. The few ways in which it does can be effectively mitigated by anyone who puts in even the tiniest bit of effort.
For that matter, nothing much stops me from carving out my own little world where I can clean up what mess it is, and live there. But to do that I'd have to admit to myself that I can't change the greater world and even acknowledge that there's no real point in wanting that other than to chase high status among our monkey tribe.
I’m building an experiment called Advaita Inquiry Matrix (AIM).
AIM is an AI-assisted system that models the pedagogical method of Advaita Vedānta. Not a “guru bot,” not mystical content generation or scriptural imitation — but a rule-governed Socratic dialogue system that automates structured ontological inquiry as far as possible.
The idea:
• Use a YAML-tagged corpus (Upaniṣads, Śaṅkara, etc.)
• Track a student’s conceptual state over time
• Dynamically select passages and questions
• Apply formal teaching methods (negation, identity statements, paradox, state analysis)
• Use constrained Socratic dialogue to expose contradictions
Advaita has a surprisingly rigorous epistemology. The teaching unfolds in a precise sequence. That makes it amenable to:
• Semantic tagging
• State-machine modeling
• Concept graphs
• Agent orchestration
The human teacher remains curator and final authority. The system handles structured mediation between text and student.
If you’re interested in AI-mediated pedagogy, knowledge representation, or formal dialogue systems, I’d welcome critique or collaboration.
Or they've determined that micromanaging it is circuitous and increases their dependence on tech giants, so it's a bad deal given that they also need to know the work well enough to verify it anyway.
reply