You really think a dog is conscious about the fact she's conscious? It would impair the playful character.

Just as humans cannot fly, teleport, or calculate the distance to the moon by looking at it. Programmed — Jackson

That's not programmed. That's part of the free process.

That's not programmed. That's part of the free process. — Hillary

Ok, same as AI.

Ok, same as AI. — Jackson

No. In AI, everything is programmed by a program you can point to. Where is the program in our brain?

No. In AI, everything is programmed by a program you can point to. Where is the program in our brain? — Hillary

The way the brain functions. It's a finite object.

Every computation has the property of not being able to wear conscious life. — Hillary

And yet, something does. A physical system, the body, the brain, underpins conscious thought.

Why does a machine have to be conscious? — Jackson

It doesn't have to be but it's conceivable.

The way the brain functions. It's a finite object. — Jackson

Yes, but where is the program directing the process?

Do you want to understand?

Celebrating ignorance. — Daemon

I understand that I don't want to be "celebrating ignorance" like this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/698236
and
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/698236

Yes, but where is the program directing the process? — Hillary

The program is the process.

And yet, something does. A physical system, the body, the brain, underpins conscious thought — Olivier5

But there is no program guiding it.

The program is the process — Jackson

The process is not a program. A program resides external to the process. That's exactly my point.

The process is not a program. A program resides external to the process. That's exactly my point. — Hillary

Which I do not agree with. No need to repeat this debate.

Which I do not agree with. — Jackson

It's not a matter of opinion.

It's not a matter of opinion. — Hillary

I did not say it was.

Then where is the external program in our brain?

What is the program in the process, if any? What's the program in a fire? What says the program? What are the steps in the program?

Then where is the external program in our brain? — Hillary

Not external.

You really think a dog is conscious about the fact she's conscious? It would impair the playful character. — Hillary

Good point. But she's conscious. And she knows you're conscious. It's just that she can't reflect about it.

Not external. — Jackson

What does the program say. Where in the brain it is situated? If there is such an internal program, how dies it apply to the process in the brain? From the inside or from the outside is both separated.

It's just that she can't reflect about it.
9mOptions — Olivier5

She can act though. The jealous little lady once faked a painful hindleg when I paid attention to another dog. She just dropped to the ground, crying like a little baby. She got mad at me when tried to help her! Poor thing... What a bitch!

So you feel consciousness exists in all parts of the body? — GLEN willows

No. Crudely put, the body is one necessary part of consciousness.

I think it's more logical to say that taking out a chunk of your body other than your brain will affect your consciousness the same way seeing something sad does. It has an effect on it, but doesn't actually remove part of it. — GLEN willows

I'd be interested to see what you think count as all necessary parts of consciousness.

So are you saying it's "nowhere" or "everywhere?" And do you mean YOUR consciousness, or a general pan-psych kind of universal consciousness? — GLEN willows

Are those the only two options? On my view it does not make sense to talk about consciousness having a spatiotemporal location. As before, I think the notion is muddled to begin with. Consciousness seems to me to consist entirely of thought and belief. Thus, it emerges with individual creatures capable of forming thought and belief about the world and/or themselves.

let me phrase it this way - can you think of anything that would affect consciousness more than damage to the brain? Obviously removing a tonail or even a whole foot wouldn’t affect it as much as removing the entire brain.

Necessarily parts of consciousness? Any of it. Some of which are awareness, emotions, memory - all of which have been proven to be affected by damage to the brain, not the foot - hand etc.

If you think about this discussion, I’m actually NOT trying to define consciousness, you are. My stance at this point is just garden variety common sense. I don’t know what consciousness is - that’s the point. You can describe it, but can’t explain it’s origin, how it developed. I find your attempts at defining it on the one hand vague, while also being obvious. It’s awareness, intentionality, memory, and quaila. We all know that.

But despite not really knowing what it is, you - and other non-materialists - insist it will never be explained. Especially by science. I just find this puzzling. I can’t think of anything else that so many people insist is unexplainable.

Or am I wrong? Do you agree that science could eventually explain consciousness as a process of the brain? Possibly?

1. A first person experience of the world. It needs to be an entity that can wander around and see by itself what elephants and rainbows look like. — Olivier5

This is something I touched on in a response to Josh's above.

I think only living things are entities of the appropriate kind. A single-celled organism is an entity because of the way the cell wall separates it from its environment. It isn't conscious, but this individuation is a necessary step on the way to consciousness.

Maybe achieving that individuation, creating genuine entities, is the real Hard Problem.

I can’t think of anything else that so many people insist is unexplainable. — GLEN willows

You're doing the generalisation thing again. It's not a democratic decision, it doesn't matter how many people believe something. Focus on what individuals have said.

There's nothing wrong with generalizing, in principle. I'm surprised at how much rain we've had here lately. I'm surprised at how many people believe in conspiracy theories. I'm surprised at the number of people (I didn't even say philosophers)) who believe consciousness will never be explained.

I have the right to an opinion.

Please stop the lecturing, I've tried to be accommodating, and I apologized to you. Let's agree to disagree on consciousness, we've covered the territory. Please?

Let's agree to disagree on consciousness, we've covered the territory. Please? — GLEN willows

Don't be silly Glen, we've barely scratched the surface. Of course there's nothing wrong with generalising, but it doesn't make for an interesting philosophical discussion. Neither does agreeing to disagree!

I think only living things are entities of the appropriate kind. A single-celled organism is an entity because of the way the cell wall separates it from its environment. It isn't conscious, but this individuation is a necessary step on the way to consciousness.

Maybe achieving that individuation, creating genuine entities, is the real Hard Problem. — Daemon

I agree Life is deeper a mystery than Thought because it already includes self-consciousness as a logical possibility.

Life is based on the genetic code, itself a form of language in which the recipes for various proteins are 'coded'. I.e. written down in DNA code. The code is interpreted by ribosomes. They play the role called by Pierce "the interpretant" in his linguistic theory. But of course they are far from being the only ones, because there are other codes at play in life than just the genetic one. There are hormones and their receptors for instance, and an endless list of regulators and receptors of myriads of processes. A lot of these processes have to do with what gets in the cell and out via the membrane.

All this to say that life makes language possible. Literally it is a form of chemical language, and it creates (or is based on) many interpreters of language.

What else besides brains can be conscious? Can a computer be conscious?

What else besides brains can be conscious? Can a computer be conscious? — RogueAI

Then consciousness is not the same as intelligence. A system can be intelligent without be conscious.

Then consciousness is not the same as intelligence. A system can be intelligent without be conscious. — Jackson

Yes, I can imagine a computer that isn't conscious easily passing a Turing Test and giving intelligent answers to questions. Would that be true intelligence, though, or an example of Searles Chinese Room?