This is exactly what came to mind when I read the question.

You mean creativity? A lot of mental processing takes place in the unconscious based on prior knowledge, but is not guaranteed valid and must be checked.

How it works is unknown, but that it takes place is certain. Ayn Rand discussed this in her lectures on the Art of Fiction and on the Art of Nonfiction, where she discussed how to more effectively use of and feed subconscious processes for writing. The role of the subconscious in creativity has also been described by others, such as Arthur Koestler's The Act of Creation.

But we can't say that machines will never be able to do it once man understands much more about how the mind works. After all, it's a natural process
and we can't say that we won't ever understand it or understand it well enough to use in engineering new devices, only that it can't be done now.

Both are reduculous.

No, as you said it's simulated (i.e., manufactured in imitation of something), An imitation of consciousness isn't consciousness.

If these braniacs believe that a computer could become conscious, why do they have so much trouble believing that the Universe is conscious?

And I submit that one thing humans can do that machines will never be capable of is intuitive thinking--quantum leaps of thinking not evident from current knowledge. For example how, Einstein expanded to concept of gravity beyond Newton.

I think he's limiting his view. It's an intrinsic property of matter and energy. Like matter and energy it can be neither created nor destroyed.

If we truly can know what consciousness is, we will have the answer to the universe.

One thing I learned on the first day of a class titled "Artificial Intelligence" was: "Artificial intelligence is the then-current cutting edge of computer programming." It is the highest level of integration programmers (or logic-unit designers) can achieve at the moment. Concepts most computer programmers consider ordinary today were "artificially intelligent" fifty years or more ago.

In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, focusing on human consciousness, Ayn Rand defined consciousness as "Consciousness is the faculty of awareness—the faculty of perceiving that which exists".

Perception is integration of sensations and does not require concepts. Concepts are integrations of perceptions:

from http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/percep...

VOS: "The higher organisms possess a much more potent form of consciousness: they possess the faculty of retaining sensations, which is the faculty of perception. A 'perception' is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things. An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by percepts. Its actions are not single, discrete responses to single, separate stimuli, but are directed by an integrated awareness of the perceptual reality confronting it. It is able to grasp the perceptual concretes immediately present and it is able to form automatic perceptual associations, but it can go no further."

IOE: "Although, chronologically, man’s consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual—epistemologically, the base of all of man’s knowledge is the perceptual stage.

"Sensations, as such, are not retained in man’s memory, nor is man able to experience a pure isolated sensation. As far as can be ascertained, an infant’s sensory experience is an undifferentiated chaos. Discriminated awareness begins on the level of percepts.

"A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. When we speak of 'direct perception' or 'direct awareness,' we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery."

From http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concep...

Romantic Manifesto: "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction and united by a specific definition. By organizing his perceptual material into concepts, and his concepts into wider and still wider concepts, man is able to grasp and retain, to identify and integrate an unlimited amount of knowledge, a knowledge extending beyond the immediate concretes of any given, immediate moment.

"In any given moment, concepts enable man to hold in the focus of his conscious awareness much more than his purely perceptual capacity would permit. The range of man’s perceptual awareness—the number of percepts he can deal with at any one time—is limited. He may be able to visualize four or five units—as, for instance, five trees. He cannot visualize a hundred trees or a distance of ten light-years. It is only his conceptual faculty that makes it possible for him to deal with knowledge of that kind."

So she regards sensation as a lower form of consciousness, which she mentions but normally did not discuss, ordinarily focusing on human consciousness as the basis of her epistemology and ethics (and therefore rights). Percepts, for creatures who have them, are an integration of sensations, and the human form of consciousness further integrates percepts into concepts as our unique form of apprehending reality.

If sensors feeding input into a computer are regarded as a primitive form of consciousness (like an insect), it still has nothing to do with human consciousness with its ability to automatically perceive, and to choose to focus, abstract, and form concepts as the means of our understanding unattainable by lower life forms. A computer can be programmed to combine sensor inputs to automatically make deductions analogous to automatic percepts, but has no conscious awareness, no free will, and no mental integrations of conceptual understanding.

so, we have an excuse -- we went nuts when we
gained consciousness!!! -- j

IMO, consciousness = self-awareness, plain and simple.

I am forced to say no, consciousness is, if you believe in a God or higher organism, a thing of life, conceived of a meeting of a male and female of a species, gestated in a womb or an egg, and born in a normal fashion, breathing air (or taking oxygen from water) and ingesting protein and other foods to function.
All a computer can do is to simulate life and thought as an electrical process, by the movement of electrons and by the positive or negative state of certain switches.
Regardless of how human they look, act or think they are still advanced machines, like the T Series of the movies.

Determination of consciousness can't be determined simply by intelligent response. Turing was in error when he used that as his basis for independent intelligence. Origination of concepts and creative thinking, as well as problem solving are required. Self-perception is a measure of higher intelligence, but not necessarily consciousness. Likewise emotion may not be a requirement for determination of consciousness. The question has to be if we can sharply define the elements of consciousness. Even some insects have demonstrated the ability to learn new behaviors, so are they conscious? The larger question has to be if the definition of a state of consciousness is in the realm of science or philosophy.

We may find that as artificial intelligences become ever more similar to human behavior, it may become moot as to whether or not we regard them as truly conscious. If a machine intelligence independently declares it has being and a right to exist, will that be enough for a legal declaration of rights?

Definition: Think
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...
Cogito ergo sum
I think therefore I am.

The real question: can it pass the Turing Test?

Can consciousness without life exist? The answer depends on our metaphysics (what knowledge is possible to Man?) which itself depends on whether the evidence of our senses accurately reflects the universe as it truly exists and if we are correctly applying Aristotle's gift to mankind, viz. syllogistic logic and, finally, the definitions of the words we use to answer the question. So if I begin by positing that there can be three, and only three, kinds of things that exist in our universe i.e. inert things, living things, and living things possessing consciousness and note that the order of their capabilities (range of action) is always in one direction. That is inert things have never been observed doing stuff that living things do (planets can only obey Newton's three laws of motion while amoeba are self-propelled meaning they are more capable than inert things). Moving on, an amoeba cannot chose to go on a diet or get married as humans can. If my basic premises are correct and my observations of the types of possible existents and their capabilities (range of actions) are correct, then I would conclude that consciousness without life is not possible.

Simulation is not the same as reality.

Rand explicitly defines consciousness as the ability to perceive.

Perception requires conception.

Mere sensation is not perception.

A computer, with the correct hardware, can sense, but not perceive.

Yes, I saw RUR at a local "Shakespeare Festival." (They always did one play not by the Bard.) Like Metropolis, RUR was influenced by socialism - the workers revolt, after all, but do not kill the engineer because, like them, he works. Still, what I remember most was that the robots achieved consciousness and self-awareness when their "annoyance" meter was sensitized. A lot could be said about that.

That was one of my favorite episodes of ST:NG, Mike. Thanks for posting it. Why aren't there shows like that on TV anymore, instead of the senseless drivel of "reality" TV and inane "talk shows"? Did you ever read or see Copek's 1921 work RUR? It introduced the word "robot" and portrayed them as sentient.

In Shelly's story, the monster did manifest feelings of fear, love and sorrow. It seems to me that there can be life without consciousness, e,g bacteria, but can there be consciousness without life? Is there a rational basis to Animism?

Makes me think of someone else:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PMlDidy...

I submit also VALENTINA: SOUL IN SAPHIRE as a science fiction novel with significant implications. In this day of computerized governmental legal filings, what prevents a sentient computer from incorporating herself?

The faux pas in the topic title first comment is "simulate". What is the difference between a person and an entity that "simulates" one. John Galt might claim that James Taggart only simulates a human being.

"Consciousness, he believes, is an intrinsic property of matter, just like mass or energy. Organize matter in just the right way, as in the mammalian brain, and voilà, you can feel" Mary Shelly tried the same thing with life when she wrote Frankenstein. Just sew body parts together, zap the creation with electricity, and voilà "it lives". This fellow will proclaim "it feels"

thanks for posting.
Makes me think of Mycroft in Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress.