[sobellian]

> It's very difficult to find some way of defining rather precisely something we can do that we can say a computer will never be able to do. There are some things that people make up that say that, "While it's doing it, will it feel good?" or, "While it's doing it, will it understand what it's doing?" or some other abstraction. I rather feel that these are things like, "While it's doing it, will it be able to scratch the lice out of it's hair?" No, it hasn't got any hair nor lice to scratch from it, okay?

> You've got to be careful when you say what the human does, if you add to the actual result of his effort some other things that you like, the appreciation of the aesthetic... then it gets harder and harder for the computer to do it because the human beings have a tendency to try to make sure that they can do something that no machine can do. Somehow it doesn't bother them anymore, it must have bothered them in earlier times, that machines are stronger physically than they are...

- Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipRvjS7q1DI

[Seattle3503]

"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra

Maybe we can swap out "think" with "experience consciousness"

[int_19h]

You need to define "consciousness" first for the question to have any meaning, but all our definitions of consciousness seem to ultimately boil down to, "this thing that I'm experiencing".

[Xunjin]

What about the famous solution provided by Descartes, “Cogito ergo sum”? Let's assume the fact that “we think”, so we can put it in a function to be computable, how is that going to prove that “I exist” for a machine? How is the machine going to perceive itself as a conscious being?