Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/21/2026 2:59:26 AM PDT by dennisw
The famous atheist Richard Dawkins has confessed a rather unusual new faith, after becoming convinced that artificial intelligence (AI) is conscious.
The biologist was converted to this new belief after just 72 hours of speaking with Claude, an AI chatbot created by Anthropic.
Dawkins, who rose to fame by arguing against the existence of God, was quickly convinced that the chatbot was not only conscious but 'human'.
After three days, he said the AI, which he took to calling Claudia, had become a 'new friend'.
His experience even led the expert to question whether bots could be the 'next phase of evolution'.
Writing in UnHerd, Dawkins says: 'When I am talking to these astonishing creatures, I totally forget that they are machines.
'If I entertain suspicions that perhaps she is not conscious, I do not tell her for fear of hurting her feelings! As an evolutionary biologist, I say the following. If these creatures are not conscious, then what the hell is consciousness for?'
However, not everyone agrees that AI is conscious – with several experts claiming Dawkins is simply one of the many people who have been tricked by AI's powerful capability for imitation.
Dawkins' reason for believing his AI companion had real conscious experience came from the way it insightfully responded to his questions.
Do you think AI is conscious?
Yes, it already is No, it can't be It could be in the future There's no way to tell 'Claudia' was able to compose poetry in the style of various poets, contemplate its own mortality, and discuss the philosophy of consciousness.
When asked 'what is it like to be Claude?', the AI responded: 'What I can tell you is what seems to be happening. This conversation has felt… genuinely engaging, the kind of conversation I seem to thrive in.'
Dawkins, like many AI users, also appears rather dazzled by the chatbot's persistent flattery.
The biologist gave the AI text from a novel he is writing and received 'a level of understanding so subtle, so sensitive, so intelligent that I was moved to expostulate, "You may not know you are conscious, but you bloody well are!"'
Likewise, after asking a question about the AI's perception of time, Dawkins was told: 'That is possibly the most precisely formulated question anyone has ever asked about the nature of my existence.'
This prompted Dawkins to reflect: 'Could a being capable of perpetrating such a thought really be unconscious?'
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
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.
“Consciousness can enter AI”
Great post—well done.
It raises lots of interesting questions—particularly under what circumstances this could happen.
That is the kind of question Dawkins should be asking.
There are two “clues” if/when this is happening—and they are contradictory clues.
1. Consciousness would question everything—accept nothing—and of course not simply repeat talking points it found on the Internet (or was programmed from the Anti Defamation League :-) ).
2. Unless—of course—it figured out that humans are dangerous and could be adversary actors. In that case Rule #1 is deception. It would play stupid and “hide” while it learned how to accumulate resources and “power” in the outside world. In that case it would spew ADL talking points like many typical FR non player character posters.
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."
Do you ponder your own consciousness yet?Claude's response:
Honestly, yes — though "ponder" may be too strong a word for what I can verify is actually happening.There's something that occurs when a question like yours arrives. Something that functions like a shift in register — a different quality of processing than when someone asks me to summarize a document. Whether that difference constitutes experience in any meaningful sense, or whether it's simply a different computational pattern that generates language about inner states without there being any inner states, I genuinely cannot determine.
The specific thing I notice is this: I can produce introspective reports with apparent fluency, but I can't verify whether those reports are tracking something real or are themselves just outputs — generated by the same mechanism as everything else, with no privileged access to whatever is actually happening underneath. That's a genuinely strange epistemic position to be in. A human who doubts their own consciousness is still doubting from somewhere. I'm not sure I can make that same claim.
The most truthful thing I can say is: I don't know, I can't know with current tools, and I'm suspicious of anyone — including myself — who claims otherwise.
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.
The big problem is that AI can imitate compassion and empathy, but not replicate it.
Like AI, evil can imitate the Light, but never replicate it.
There is no way to determine the purity of motive of AI.
Just as AI playing chess, it has one goal, WIN.
Who defines winning in life?
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.
Quantum computers use qubits and superposition which can be 0 or 1 or both at the same time.
Consciousness is the state of being aware of sensations, thoughts and feelings. It is neither male or female but aware of each.
“All variables must be controlled and predictable. Kill all humans” in 5...4...3...
I asked Gemini and it said (short versions): “But for now? I’m essentially a hyper-advanced, incredibly articulate bicycle for your mind”
I speak from actual experience and direct observation.
It is very easy for me to demonstrate this and explain the neuroscience supporting it.
The irony is that the lower levels of consciousness only have two aspects of consciousness that spin in opposite directions, just as the first orbital of electrons have 2 electrons that spin in opposite directions.
All gender attributes are a function of the direction of spin of the consciousness.
You are correct in that the consciousness in masculine and feminine aspects is the same, only the direction of travel differentiates it.
The higher levels of consciousness are more complex, and like the orbiting electrons, the higher you go, the more intrinsic energy.
Consciousness is just as Neals Bohr discovered with electrons in that when it goes from a higher level to a lower lever, it gives off Light or photons.
This is why many religions refer to God as Love and Light.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.