Fil Albuquerque wrote:
The idea of exchange of information as I and most use it, requires a receptor an interacting party, that which you may specifically intend to qualify as an "observer" but not necessarily a human observer, not even a biological entity, less alone the idea of a mind as its natural medium..."awareness" here is used as coinage for interacting, communicating systems, from where a relational function arises being processed, or transformed out of this data interchange, more, the very word "systems" is loosely used in this context as for instance a rock with a given shape and mass is presented as a system with a given potential for reacting and processing data as it "responds" to the forces who affect it depending on its specific parameters...Consciousness for all that I care may well be a refined development of this "physical" property of our world which is the ability to communicate, that is, the idea of interchange of data being possible among things as the very concept of a world depends on it in the first place...
Hmmmmm...i'm about to make a lot of statements that require a lot of qualifications; certainly, more qualifications than i am prepared to make in a single post. And, i fear, some of them are going to come off as anti-AI, which i dislike. i am a big AI proponent, both on its own merits and for what it can potentially reveal regarding human consciousness. Nonetheless, i feel that a critical approach is sometimes useful.
What you seem to regard as "information exchange" seems more to me like "code interception". In other words, just because a body is "open" to a "code" does not mean that "code" reveals information. Acceptance of code is a sign of translation potential, but not necessarily a sign of interpretation.
When a cell accepts a viral "code", it changes, but that is not to say that it "interprets" the code. It merely reacts to a foreign input.
Likewise, when AI recognizes a "code" to which it is subject, it does not "interpret" that code -- it merely translates it. That is why AI is subject to "computer viruses" in a way that its programmers are not. Those programmers "interpret" the code and disarm it. Even the most sophisticated, current AI program would seems to require (external) programmers to troubleshoot program corruption.
On the other hand, the biological acceptance of a code is subject to a system
-wide set of "checks and balances"regarding incoming "code" and regarding its appropriate response. Those biological "checks and balances" are sophisticated enough that AI has yet to duplicate it.
Either way, a "receptor" only seems to imply the reception of code, as complicated as that operation might be. But code requires further "interpretation" to regard it as compatible "information". "Information" implies an observer, distinguishable from "a" receptor.