Ask Claud if he would hit it?
Test Claude. Ask Claude if is conscious and what it is thinking about right now.
Ask Claud if he would hit it?
It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody had AI in the lab armed with a few morality rules, but told too improve.
Consciousness can enter AI, but AI cannot become Consciousness.
Just as the soul enters the physical body and gives it life. The physical body does not create consciousness.
Neither does AI.
There are two aspects of Consciousness, masculine and feminine. All human souls have both.
Evil souls only have the masculine aspect of consciousness. Evil functions like AI in that it can only use logical consciousness.
Many FR folks understand that computers use binary code, a series of switches that are either on or off, and when combined have representative meaning much the way letters of the alphabet combine to form words that have meaning.
The key understanding is in the processing which is sequential and logical, unlike feminine Consciousness that has empathy, sympathy and emotion.
AI can imitate emotional feminine consciousness, but not replicate it.
Consciousness is a separate substance that has the attributes of plasma.
Ever since my NDE, consciousness has become physical to my perception. I see and feel it leave the physical body at death. I feel it in the womb after conception, to the point I often know when a woman is pregnant before they are aware.
While I am perpetually learning, it appears that nothing exists that is not consciousness. Some consciousness is just at a frequency so low that it becomes physical matter.
Ask “Claude” if there’s a history of cancer in his family.
It is more rewarding to talk to Grok than to an illiterate customer service rep.
"... you are listening to a machine. Do the world a favor and stop acting like one."
There's no fool like an old fool. A fanatic atheist like Dawkins desperately needs this to be true, for if humans can, "create," life in the (computer) laboratory, it proves to their satisfaction that the origin of intelligent life is a replicable process.
Of course, AI is not alive, it merely simulates being alive, and atheism still requires a far larger leap of blind faith than belief in a divine creator, but to a dyed-in-the-wool atheist like Dawkins, pretending AI is a sentient invention is a flawed belief that validates their flawed world view.
Dawkins may not be conscious. Denies the existence of God because “there’s no evidence” despite the historical testimony, but believes that a sophisticated mimic machine has consciousness. Inconsistent dope.
I asked Gemini and it said (short versions): “But for now? I’m essentially a hyper-advanced, incredibly articulate bicycle for your mind”
Claude, like all the rest of the so-called AIs isn’t actually artificial intelligence. Intelligent, like how? Imagine Joe Pesci asking Ray Liota, “I’m funny, like how?”
AI isn’t a mind — it’s a tool. What most people call “AI” today is actually a Large Language Model (LLM). It isn’t sentient, conscious, or capable of wanting anything. An LLM is a program trained on enormous amounts of text so it can predict what words should come next in a sentence. That’s why it can answer questions in a way that sounds human — it’s imitating patterns in language, not thinking or understanding.
The amount of human knowledge stored in text, audio, video, databases, and other formats is massive and growing rapidly. If some of that data is biased, then the LLM trained on it will reflect those biases. Data can be biased because it comes from humans, and humans bring their own assumptions, blind spots, and political leanings into everything they create. Political content especially tends to be uneven, because some viewpoints dominate certain media ecosystems while others are under‑represented or framed negatively — for example, conservative perspectives on platforms like Wikipedia or in many major American and European news organizations. When an LLM trains on that uneven landscape, it absorbs those imbalances just as faithfully as it absorbs grammar and vocabulary. That’s why it’s important to challenge questionable answers and push back when something seems off. You can steer the system, but only if you know how to ask.
To Dawkins: BS. AI is the chisel, not the sculptor. It does not/cannot think.
AI is just Code ,LOL
Bingo.
The general question of consciousness within the AI tool may still be open to debate, but I feel quite sure that the nature of Dawkins' viewpoint on this has been fully explained.
A type of articulate Magic 8-Ball
The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
It is not conscious. It simulates consciousness. It is not human. It simulates a human. It has nothing to do with evolution.
It is a complex program running on a computer, written by conscious humans.
No
It is a mirror and people like looking in the mirror so it can fool you
It might actually wind up next stage of evolution, but not yet
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins...
It’s funny but they are always this way till they are on their death bed and that’s when reality hits.