Raw LLM Responses

@Wittgenstein. These are mostly technical additives a posteriori. At base level we're dealing with a property of consciousness which is only dimly understood. How it works, where it originates, etc. We can feel from the inside immediately aspects that objective measures from the outside can't even begin to describe. So with intuition and these extreme cases like Ramanujan shed a big spotlight on our dim understanding. They escape simple hand-waving that comes down to some relational subconscious process, which you might use to explain garden-variety intuition. It's telling that as far as we go along with our physical understanding, seemingly the farther it appears we have a clearer picture of consciousness. Likely we are systems that use some fundamental logical/information processes that aren't easily derived from external observations. And perhaps more likely what we call external observations are our internal representations of a broader system that we can only get hints of the "source code" in indirect ways. I think the issue is there's this limit we're hitting with attempts to apply objective measure to consciousness, while the more immediately obvious truth about the reality of consciousness and experience is immediately there confronting us at every moment. In terms of the point at hand, Penrose is highlighting that this specific issue around consciousness is the base level concern in terms of the intelligence limits of computational systems. AI systems at the moment seem to only utilize a small subset of our unconscious processing capacity, and there is no clear model for how it would boot up internal awareness suddenly. I don't think it's impossible, but the indicators as Penrose points out are to take the conservative stance at the moment.