Any sufficiently precise stream of sensory input to a sufficiently

ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
what makes u tick big guy?

Looks like somebody here watched the latest ted talk on consciousness yesterday...
To be honest I agree but weakly

Complete hogwash.

A child can be born that meets all that criteria, yet is incapable of consciousness due to a brain disorder.

>>9050117
no please link it

>>9050120
The only conscious being you can be certain about, is yourself.

Cogito, ergo sum.

>>9050117
>>9050128
found it
>https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality

brainlets, please watch
>>9050109
>>9050120

>>9050144


Yawn. Standard-issue pseud spouting pseud shit.

Where there is demand for hip new """""theories"""""" of consciousness, you can always count on TED to supply

>>9050158
Insightful response. Consciousness not detected.

>>9050104
Chinese Box

>>9050104
Any sufficiently precise stream of sensory input to any universal function approximator will eventually lead to self-awareness.

There's also random forests and completely different structures of neural nets. The main magic part is they're universal function approximators. You give in data with functions, it learns to model that and act on it.

>>9050104
>Any sufficiently precise stream of sensory input to a sufficiently deep neural network will eventually lead to self-awareness. Prove me wrong /sci/

dont you have to at least show an example where what you asserted is true?
is that true? because that seems scary if it is.

but it doesnt seem true. What is the difference from our precise sensory input and another animals that allows us to have self-awareness?