Souls?

I can make a computer program that makes the computer say "stop it you are hurting me" every time I press the t key. does this give us reason to believe that the t key hurts the computer. not really. lets go with pain. the reason for this is unlike sight there is an obvious differce with reacting to it versus feeling it. although we can't test for it we understand the difference. now you might say that my idea is to simple that it needs to be a more complicated for there to be feeling. well how much more complicated. when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain. how many steps. also why does it change?I need to go to work I will post more latter.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 08, 2009, 10:34:33 AM

Can you elaborate on why or how?

How would the brain distinguish between neural signals from sensory input and subconsciously self-generated signals?

Does it make that distinction? My actual consciousness is rather unaware of my actual subconscious.

And can a lack of sensation not also be sensed?

when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.

Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.

The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.

If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.

If we make a simulated human from synthetic material, that we can be certain thinks, feels and has simular morals as your average human (there are plenty of variables i know, just humor me here), and for all purposes and intent is an exact replica of a human, would it have a soul?

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 08, 2009, 10:48:23 AM

when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.

Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.

The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.

If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.

but then when would it become pain. if I had a robot that avoided light would the light be causing it pain? how many different parts does it need to have for it to become pain. pain, feeling is different then a simple action reaction. a domino can't feel it has been pushed, why does a system that is complex enough all of the sudden gain a new property. keep in mind something doesn't need to feel to react in  a complex form. when is it complex enough that I can say bam it is feeling pain not just reacting. or oh it only has a process involving 2423542 connections that is one less then is needed to be a feeling.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 08, 2009, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 08, 2009, 10:48:23 AM

when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.

Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.

The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.

If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.

but then when would it become pain. if I had a robot that avoided light would the light be causing it pain? how many different parts does it need to have for it to become pain. pain, feeling is different then a simple action reaction.

Why?

a domino can't feel it has been pushed, why does a system that is complex enough all of the sudden gain a new property. keep in mind something doesn't need to feel to react in a complex form.

Are you asking when is a system or computer designed to interpret senses?
And yes actually feeling is required. Without feeling, seeing, or hearing things cannot react. Senses are the stimuli and input.

when is it complex enough that I can say bam it is feeling pain not just reacting. or oh it only has a process involving 2423542 connections that is one less then is needed to be a feeling.

It's not a function of complexity but of design. If it can detect signals from senses and can interpret them under certain categorical stimuli, it has sensation in its own robot way. Number of circuits doesn't imply anything about design. Design can just imply a certain level of complexity.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 07:49:07 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 08, 2009, 10:52:36 AM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 08, 2009, 10:48:23 AM

when does it stop being just action reaction and does the thing actually feel pain.

Pain is a part of the action reaction process. It never stops being a part of it.

The difference is that a computer programmed with the specific responses like "if button pressed, then display text file". A brain fitted with perception of good and bad sensation can respond to infinite number of scenarios without an infinite number of logical statements regarding action. It's precise categorical reaction by making every scenario a form of motivation even if its new or different.

If something inflicts pain, avoid it. "Something" is a wide meaning term instead of a specific term like "button A". With general terms, many general rules may overlap and depedning on how strong some variables are, rules will supersede other rules. That is what I consider to be a choice.

but then when would it become pain. if I had a robot that avoided light would the light be causing it pain? how many different parts does it need to have for it to become pain. pain, feeling is different then a simple action reaction.

Why?

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 07:49:07 AM

a domino can't feel it has been pushed, why does a system that is complex enough all of the sudden gain a new property. keep in mind something doesn't need to feel to react in a complex form.

Are you asking when is a system or computer designed to interpret senses?
And yes actually feeling is required. Without feeling, seeing, or hearing things cannot react. Senses are the stimuli and input.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 07:49:07 AM

when is it complex enough that I can say bam it is feeling pain not just reacting. or oh it only has a process involving 2423542 connections that is one less then is needed to be a feeling.

It's not a function of complexity but of design. If it can detect signals from senses and can interpret them under certain categorical stimuli, it has sensation in its own robot way. Number of circuits doesn't imply anything about design. Design can just imply a certain level of complexity.

You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens. what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.

You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens.

Bingo, it is just action reaction. I'm not saying processing sensory data is special enough to create sensation, but that sensation is nothing special beyond interpretation of that data.

what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.

If something can process a sense of something, it has sensation.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 12:35:40 PM

You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens.

Bingo, it is just action reaction. I'm not saying processing sensory data is special enough to create sensation, but that sensation is nothing special beyond interpretation of that data.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 12:35:40 PM

what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.

If something can process a sense of something, it has sensation.

So you're saying a thermistor feels warm and cold?

and what is process data mean? what is data?

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 09, 2009, 01:17:22 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 12:35:40 PM

You are acting as though interpretation of data somehow is special form any other action reaction. interpreting the data is just a complex action reaction. this happens because this happens.

Bingo, it is just action reaction. I'm not saying processing sensory data is special enough to create sensation, but that sensation is nothing special beyond interpretation of that data.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 12:35:40 PM

what makes something special because it has for lack of a better term organization to its circuit elements. what makes one of those thought and another one that lacks feelings.

If something can process a sense of something, it has sensation.

So you're saying a thermistor feels warm and cold?

only if it is hooked up to a computer.


you know for some reason although we are both using logic to discuss something that is a truth of the universe (which ever way it really is) I really don't think we are going to come to an answer that satisfies both of us.

Does it make that distinction? My actual consciousness is rather unaware of my actual subconscious.

And can a lack of sensation not also be sensed?

The initial question was:

If you weren't processing senses, could you have sensation?

The inability to distinguish between real and fabricated senses is my reasoning for answering "yes" to this question.

So you're saying a thermistor feels warm and cold?

Can it process information from senses? No, because it is not designed with sensory features or a computational system to interpret what it would sense.

and what is process data mean? what is data?

'Processing' data mean that the data is used as input for thought.
'Data' being nerve signals or information from sensory organs/devices. (Electrical impulses carry sight data through the optic nerve).

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 08, 2009, 10:29:56 AM

If you weren't processing senses, could you have sensation?

The inability to distinguish between real and fabricated senses is my reasoning for answering "yes" to this question.

What fabricated sense? If pain is a variable, I would count zero pain as a sensation of a lack of pain.

What fabricated sense? If pain is a variable, I would count zero pain as a sensation of a lack of pain.

I use the word "fabricated" to mean neural signals generated by the subconscious, as opposed to those from real sensory input.

and what is process data mean? what is data?

'Processing' data mean that the data is used as input for thought.
'Data' being nerve signals or information from sensory organs/devices. (Electrical impulses carry sight data through the optic nerve).

[/quote]
[/quote]

Ok lets say you have something connected to a photo cell. now it sends signals based on the weather. power is a 1, no power is a zero. now lets say you take this signal and plug it into a random bit of transistor and shit. lets say the transistors and shit are hooked up too a monitor. lets say the monitor display a poem. is the random signals data? would they be data if it was not hooked up to it. or is it our minds that gives it meaning. is it us that decideds if it is data or not?

I use the word "fabricated" to mean neural signals generated by the subconscious, as opposed to those from real sensory input.

The subconscious is a system of processes just like the conscious, except that the conscious is also able to evaluate its components of its external awareness, while the subconscious is limited to only evaluating the external. I'd be inclined to say that the subconscious is much more like optimisticcynic's thought model for a human without _{<<<[bloody typo fixed]} a ghost in the machine. As long as it isn't able to think about itself, consciousness remains limited.

If an artificial brain can sense things, and interpret those senses in categories (pain or relaxation) and magnitude, what more could it possibly need to have sensation?
I have nerves in my arm, and when I rub steel wool on it, it sends pain signals to my brain which then informs me that it hurts. That awareness of electrical signals is called pain.

Ok lets say you have something connected to a photo cell. now it sends signals based on the weather. power is a 1, no power is a zero. now lets say you take this signal and plug it into a random bit of transistor and shit. lets say the transistors and shit are hooked up too a monitor. lets say the monitor display a poem. is the random signals data? would they be data if it was not hooked up to it. or is it our minds that gives it meaning. is it us that decideds if it is data or not?

Okay lets see.
The photo cell is like a stimuli of sunlight (like pain in basic forms: on/off).
The transistors and shit would be interpreting the stimuli like a brain (complexity making it appear random).
The monitor is like a muscular system capable of acting based on the brain's output.

It sounds like the random signals are the output not the input to me. All the data I have been talking about was input. The photocell's binary variable would be data though.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 06:44:21 PM

Ok lets say you have something connected to a photo cell. now it sends signals based on the weather. power is a 1, no power is a zero. now lets say you take this signal and plug it into a random bit of transistor and shit. lets say the transistors and shit are hooked up too a monitor. lets say the monitor display a poem. is the random signals data? would they be data if it was not hooked up to it. or is it our minds that gives it meaning. is it us that decideds if it is data or not?

Okay lets see.
The photo cell is like a stimuli of sunlight (like pain in basic forms: on/off).
The transistors and shit would be interpreting the stimuli like a brain (complexity making it appear random).
The monitor is like a muscular system capable of acting based on the brain's output.

It sounds like the random signals are the output not the input to me. All the data I have been talking about was input. The photocell's binary variable would be data though.

but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?

but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?

It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 07:03:38 PM

but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?

It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.

but what is the difference between a bunch of electronics hooked up in an order and a bunch of them hooked p randomly. as long as you hook them up to a camera them are doing something with the data. does that mean that both of them are seeing something? according to your definitions as I understand them anything can have feeling. a solar cell hooked up to a wire has the sensation of sight. a electronic thermometer has the sensation of different temperatures.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 09, 2009, 07:06:35 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 07:03:38 PM

but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?

It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.

but what is the difference between a bunch of electronics hooked up in an order and a bunch of them hooked p randomly. as long as you hook them up to a camera them are doing something with the data. does that mean that both of them are seeing something?

If the electronics process the data in a consistent orderly fashion, I would think yes. It senses certain optical patterns. Knowing what those patterns are or represent is different from sensing them.

according to your definitions as I understand them anything can have feeling. a solar cell hooked up to a wire has the sensation of sight. a electronic thermometer has the sensation of different temperatures.

These things don't process or interpret any data, they only collect it.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 11, 2009, 01:05:46 PM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 09, 2009, 07:06:35 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 09, 2009, 07:03:38 PM

but what makes it data. if I hooked up a cell to a wire is it still data?

It's data because it contains information representing the reality. For instance, the photocell transmits information of light exposure.

but what is the difference between a bunch of electronics hooked up in an order and a bunch of them hooked p randomly. as long as you hook them up to a camera them are doing something with the data. does that mean that both of them are seeing something?

If the electronics process the data in a consistent orderly fashion, I would think yes. It senses certain optical patterns. Knowing what those patterns are or represent is different from sensing them.

Quote

according to your definitions as I understand them anything can have feeling. a solar cell hooked up to a wire has the sensation of sight. a electronic thermometer has the sensation of different temperatures.

These things don't process or interpret any data, they only collect it.

A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.

A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.

But does it process it in a way that requires awareness of the concept of numbers or is it capable of evaluation?
Is it strict interpretation (one rule for every instance) or categorical interpretation (One rule for one concept)? The thermometer is not built to recognize the significance of the numbers and form concepts of them.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 11, 2009, 01:21:47 PM

A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.

But does it process it in a way that requires awareness of the concept of numbers or is it capable of evaluation?
Is it strict interpretation (one rule for every instance) or categorical interpretation (One rule for one concept)? The thermometer is not built to recognize the significance of the numbers and form concepts of them.

the point I am trying to make is that all parts of by themselves can be at most this. when you add more of them together you do not get an awareness it . you may get a system that is so complicated it is not predictable but that doesn't mean you should think it is aware. it is like saying that 1000 pounds of steel would have different property then 1 pound of steel.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 11, 2009, 01:31:08 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 11, 2009, 01:21:47 PM

A electronic thermometer processes data by turning the amount of heat around it into a number.

But does it process it in a way that requires awareness of the concept of numbers or is it capable of evaluation?
Is it strict interpretation (one rule for every instance) or categorical interpretation (One rule for one concept)? The thermometer is not built to recognize the significance of the numbers and form concepts of them.

the point I am trying to make is that all parts of by themselves can be at most this. when you add more of them together you do not get an awareness it.

Awareness is just knowing that you're receiving information and you know what it means, is it not?

what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.

Change from reacting?

Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.

I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance.

Singy, a thermometer doesn't know that it's receiving information, and it doesn't know what the information means. It just mindlessly processes one piece of information into another.

That's essentially my point. Processing information can either follow a linear static path or a interpretive dynamic path. By giving the object or brain in question actual knowledge of the data, knowledge of what the data represents, and knowledge of how it can be applied to other concepts, I see awareness emerge. A thermometer is not aware, nor knowledgeable of anything. It is an action reaction system that has no consciousness to perceive the devices that are sensitive to things.

Storing information, understanding it, sorting it by relevance, accessing it appropriately, and adapting it to fit new situations is where the appearance of consciousness and choice comes into play. Humans are unlimited with possible stimuli and unlimited functions (as opposed to always displaying temperature data) is just used as it is necessary, but it gives everything else meaning. When you develop a connection of ideas and data like a web of knowledge, you have a foundation for material thought. Enough so, that you can effectively expand upon it with new combinations or concepts of your own. A set of dominoes is designed to fall, but what is a human designed to do?

Awareness of senses implies a deep and basic implicit understanding of the senses and not just being sensitive to something like heat. Sensation and awareness of sensation are different. Awareness allows us to assign positive or negatives attributes to sensation. Burning your hand wouldn't mean much if signals revealing distinct nerve damage wasn't associated with pain.

If you had to describe consciousness is as objective terms as possible, how would you? I submit that it is simply awareness of senses.

Something may be sensitive to electrical current, which would mean that it effectively can sense electricity. Consciousness means understanding that you have senses, and understanding the senses are meaningful (even if only to your perception), et cetera. No thermometer has been built to be aware (or for that matter self aware) to my knowledge.

what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.

Change from reacting?

Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.

I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.

Quote from: optimisticcynic

what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.

Change from reacting?

Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.

I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.

that is just a system that changes based on the input. there need be no awareness or knowledge there. in a newer video game the computer player can figure out my patterns and change accordingly. does this mean it actually understands what I am doing, or is it just reacting. again although the system is more complex and changes based on the input it doesn't show any reason to be more then just that, a system. that is it's component parts and something can't gain new property's from it's component parts just because there are more of them. no mater how I put my Legos together the hardness of the structure won't change.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 12, 2009, 03:08:16 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic

what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.

Change from reacting?

Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.

I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.

that is just a system that changes based on the input.

As is the brain.

there need be no awareness or knowledge there. in a newer video game the computer player can figure out my patterns and change accordingly.

Because he is designed to adjust in specific ways for specific actions. Comprehension is necessary for dealing with anything unexpected. An enemy in a computer game is limited to his ability to adjust to you based on what programmers predicted different styles of playing would be. It's actions will never grow, and it can't learn anything it didn't really start with.

does this mean it actually understands what I am doing, or is it just reacting. again although the system is more complex and changes based on the input it doesn't show any reason to be more then just that, a system.

As the brain is just an action reaction system. Understanding requires the ability to associate ideas and phenomenons and establish conceptual relationships between them.

that is it's component parts and something can't gain new property's from it's component parts just because there are more of them. no mater how I put my Legos together the hardness of the structure won't change.

But that's just it, it will change. The large the structure, the easier it is to break apart. There is physical stability in small pieces of something larger. How many times can you break a pencil in half with your fingers?

A more relevant example might be that someone with a single neuron cannot think, but build a hive collective of neurons to connect and transmit signals to each other and may patterns that emerge constitute thought. It's not that the properties change on a small level, but that larger properties can emerge.

If you had to describe consciousness is as objective terms as possible, how would you? I submit that it is simply awareness of senses.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 13, 2009, 08:44:51 AM

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 12, 2009, 03:08:16 PM

Quote from: optimisticcynic

what does it mean to know you are receiving information. when does it change from reacting to knowing. if that wasn't clear I could try again.

Change from reacting?

Knowledge is having an intimate understanding of concepts. Say I knew nothing of chairs. I could be exposed to a few chairs and learn to sit in them, but say a new different looking chair is introduced afterwords. Would I have to relearn how to make use of this new chair because it varies slightly, or can I delve into the properties of functionality by contemplating its similar design in specification? If I really understand what a chair is enough to identify another one that is not the same, I have some understanding of the concept.

I think of knowledge as a organized mental system of facts derived from experience of interconnected data giving everything else meaning and relevance. The previous chairs I used are part of that foundational system of knowledge and give me enough context to properly use the new one.

that is just a system that changes based on the input.

As is the brain.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 13, 2009, 08:44:51 AM

there need be no awareness or knowledge there. in a newer video game the computer player can figure out my patterns and change accordingly.

Because he is designed to adjust in specific ways for specific actions. Comprehension is necessary for dealing with anything unexpected. An enemy in a computer game is limited to his ability to adjust to you based on what programmers predicted different styles of playing would be. It's actions will never grow, and it can't learn anything it didn't really start with.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 13, 2009, 08:44:51 AM

does this mean it actually understands what I am doing, or is it just reacting. again although the system is more complex and changes based on the input it doesn't show any reason to be more then just that, a system.

As the brain is just an action reaction system. Understanding requires the ability to associate ideas and phenomenons and establish conceptual relationships between them.

Quote from: optimisticcynic on September 13, 2009, 08:44:51 AM

that is it's component parts and something can't gain new property's from it's component parts just because there are more of them. no mater how I put my Legos together the hardness of the structure won't change.

But that's just it, it will change. The large the structure, the easier it is to break apart. There is physical stability in small pieces of something larger. How many times can you break a pencil in half with your fingers?

A more relevant example might be that someone with a single neuron cannot think, but build a hive collective of neurons to connect and transmit signals to each other and may patterns that emerge constitute thought. It's not that the properties change on a small level, but that larger properties can emerge.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on September 12, 2009, 02:52:10 PM

If you had to describe consciousness is as objective terms as possible, how would you? I submit that it is simply awareness of senses.

Okay Lets just go to the sum of my point. this will be probably my last post in this topic because I doubt with just you and me arguing we will get anywhere new. Anyway it seems to me that although you could use sensation as a good modeling tool to explain actions of truly complex systems it is something that you should not expect. such as pain. you can make pain for a robot that learns so it learns what to avoid. or you can use it for an good comparison for why the machine complains when you push it to hard, but it does not seem to be something that you should expect from a system.
again they were the best comparisons I could come up with.
I would go with consciousness is somethings ability to have sensations and understand what they mean. I understand that according to my definitions it is an impossible thing to test for. hell I don't even know if you are conscious but that is what makes sense to me.