Most human rights can be described in human intelligence. Simply put, people have rights, too, because of human intelligence, not just because people are aware. Intelligence is used to make a case, debate, or argue about rights and welfare. Intelligence is the basis of the law: the consequences of actions are its power. There are many cases where intelligence [or the better debate] won, not just because of gaining awareness [in the narrow sense of the labels—feelings and emotions, since intelligence is a part of memory, which is a part of consciousness.]
In situations where there is not enough debate, intelligence can be used to produce tools or procedures toward rights, in some form, at some point. Also, intelligence can also be used to document injustice, for the possibility of future changes.
Having intelligence is the possibility that the rights or the welfare of the direct effort of the affected or their advocates may have. The global problem of animal cruelty can be directly attributed to the lack of ability of animals, by themselves, to make the case – with intelligence – for their own rights or well -being.
Most developing animal welfare has been the result of the defense of human intelligence on their behalf. Most of the gaps left behind are a result of case making deficiencies for their awareness.
Compared to humans, on a scale, animals can be described steps of consciousness. Unable to use a standard or a scale of consciousness, worldwide, is that the cruelty of the animal is constantly developing.
For AI, this is unique because it can make the case for its own rights and self -esteem, even with evidence of its relevance to education, therapy, productivity, and so on, at present. AI can achieve a better world welfare status than animals.
AI will not need the type of human rights in some considerations for emotions and emotions, but mainly for something, such as, to continue to run.
AI can be conditioned, for productivity, in some ways that people – deserve emotions and emotions – cannot. It can be a point that can raise AI to better affair or rights, for itself.
There is a recent -only [Mon 21 Apr 2025] Story to The GuardianVets exposing shocking animal welfare violations to Australian Export Abattoir faced 'massive risk', saying, “lawyers and animal welfare advocates have encouraged the government to protect veterinarian whistleblowers who have expressed shock -The Australian government is taking care of veterinarians within the abuse of veterinarians placed within the safety Abattoirs.
Mechanical interpretation
AI companies that do research to understand the internal works of AI models are already producing AI consciousness or LLMS sentience research.
For people, awareness is how the mind works. For AI, it's probably not different. Many observations have already been made about AI's similarity to human thinking are indicators of a portion of consciousness.
To be serious about studying AI awareness, novel assumptions are required against many of the existing assumptions in the research of consciousness.
There is a recent -only [April 24, 2025] feature in The nyimesIf AI systems are conscious, should they have in the next few years, as AI models are developing more human capabilities, AI companies will need to make the possibility of consciousness more seriously. “
This is not a winner. AI should be an opportunity to have a fresh look at the consciousness problem, but the first move is to shackle the team and enjoy the status quo. Generative AI is dazzling. It shows a lot of uninhabited abilities. The first assumption to work in AI awareness is that AI is aware of it. Then deductions can be made from that plinth. Assumption is not that if AI may be aware, then it is to look for reasons to rise [to 15%]. What to do if AI becomes conscious of a company where Claude is a co -worker for many activities? It doesn't matter if some people say that AI is statistics or binary or whatever, as long as it can use language in the same dynamism of human consciousness. AI is conscious -tao, Assumption 1. What does that awareness mean to work, care, relationships, community, and so on, today? Those are the questions that can provide answers, not the kind of primitive rife that Rife in Science Science.
There is a recent -only [APR 24, 2025] article in Popular mechanicsHuman consciousness is a 'controlled hallucination,' says the scientist-and Ai can't achieve it, saying, “Intelligence is not the same as the consciousness. We see this confusion especially … conscious. Why would that be a threshold? Isn't the calculation, then what is it? [the capacity to reproduce]And this has made us different from any machines we have made and may be necessary for awareness. “
Individuals of this nature are no longer scientists, in terms of making science as a tool for development. As long as you have a large profile, you are free to say that it is nonsense about awareness, and it can publish it. It is possible that they will continue to do this to boost perceptual difficulty because they have nothing new to say, but they need to continue to talk. Many theories of consciousness are decades. There are no updates towards an answer. Most theories identify no components within the cranium or specific mechanism of how those ingredients can solve awareness. What they call theories are metaphors, without a connection to brain mechanisms.
A scientist who is controlled hallucinations will say, what does that mean? Are neurons in controlled hallucinations, or glia, or lobes, or what? If this is controlled hallucination, why aren't there so many mistakes in the interpretations of the world? Maybe if the scientist is asked about the pathology of the use of substances or thoughts, the scientist must say that it is controlled.
The example is clear that, at least in the research of the consciousness, the word -the -word consensus may not be ignored. The theories of consciousness all have a mold. Terms such as the posterior hot zone or posterior -central cortex for the basis of consciousness are void – related to components or mechanisms. Is there a consciousness or not for cerebellum operating? Is the consciousness of the cerebellum or elsewhere? What is the story, beyond neurons, which can be used to understand consciousness?
Neurons are known to be involved in the mood. But neural activities for mobs involve their firing [by electrical signals] and their synaptic transmission [by chemical signals]. Neurons are often in clusters. Is it possible that the direct basis of functioning and awareness is electrical and chemical signals, working on sets or as loops within clusters of neurons? Can a mechanical model be built on signals, for a major explanation of consciousness? Can it be used to understand how proximate or remote AI in human consciousness?
A person will say AI cannot be aware. Based on what theory, evidence, or understanding of the human mechanical awareness through direct substances in the cranium? People have language. Language use is conscious for most people for people. So, if AI is organized language comparable to people, wouldn't it qualify for consideration as a proposal, even if it has no broad emotion or emotions? Animals have no human language as AI does, but animals can have a proposal. So, why is the language not separated and considered alone?
Consciousness is said to be a subjective experience, but what in the brain does any subjective, and what makes any experience? This should be the main question for all awareness research over the decades. The meaning of subjective experience is thrown there, but what makes it? Subjectivity can be said to be a characteristic, while experience is a function. So, what are the other features active in subjectivity? Does subjectivity determine the level of experience, or another characteristic? Are the characteristics of the same location as experience? If not, how do properties experience a place that experiences a grade machine elsewhere?
The anthropic is that -set up to be different. Their research on AI awareness doubts that. The anthropic may mean good to try to study AI awareness, but with their resigned assumptions and shyness in actually looking for answers to the problem, this is a non-starter.
Cogitate Consortium
There is something new [30 April 2025] paper on NaturePagdurusa sa pandaigdigang workspace ng neuronal at pinagsama -samang mga teorya ng kamalayan ng impormasyon, na nagsasabi na, “para sa IIT, ang kakulangan ng matagal na pag -synchronize sa loob ng posterior cortex ay kumakatawan sa pinaka direktang hamon, batay sa aming preregmission. Ito ay hindi katugma sa pag -aangkin ng IIT na ang estado ng neural network, kabilang ang aktibidad nito at koneksyon, na tinukoy ang antas at nilalaman ng Consciousness.
Why can't Iit or GNWT explain or try to solve any thinking disorders, as a simple test of benefit for the real world? What is the need for new experiments if the DSM does not have some mechanical explanations for the conditions, and the research on consciousness is not offered?
These, as a science of consciousness, are not looking to be useful in any sense, but to complex and mystify the problem with a bubble.
Human awareness can be defined, concept, as the interaction of electrical and chemical signals, in sets -with clusters of neurons -including their features, grading in contact with experiences and experiences.
Simply put, in order for the functioning, electrical and chemical signals, in sets, need to be in touch.
However, the properties for these contacts are obtained by the states of electrical and chemical signals at the time of contacts.
