As far as I'm concerned you need to 'feel' to be conscious, and you need a body to 'feel'. Ergo you cannot have a 'computed consciousness' and compare it to human consciousness.
Consciousness itself is a relatively ambiguous term so if you start extending it to items like oranges, rocks, trees or cats, then we're going to start to disagree about the technical use of 'consciousness' very quickly.
Is it not actually possible to put people in a state where they can not feel anything and yet are still conscious? In other words, what exactly is wrong with completely being unaware of your feelings/emotions and still be conscious of your thoughts only? — Zelebg
If someone said to me their robot is sentient, I don't see any other way to settle the matter but to question the subjectivness or qualia of robot's awareness/experience. And if they showed me what I showed you, I would have no argument and would have to agree with them. — Zelebg
For me that is a contradiction of terms because 'thought' necessarily requires 'feeling'/'emotions'.
I'm sure there are plenty of "antenna" references out there but I haven't taken the time to look for them, since I think they are taking the analogy too literally.Is there any other referrence to "antenna" in relation to mind or sentience you know of? — Zelebg
And the definition of consciousness is: "act of self-observation".
- Zelebg
FWIW, I think feedback loops and self-reference are necessary, but not sufficient, to produce consciousness. Again Koch's book gets into the details of how that works
Thats why it's a metaphor not an analogy. :wink:I'm sure there are plenty of "antenna" references out there but I haven't taken the time to look for them, since I think they are taking the analogy too literally. — Gnomon
Perhaps experiments could be designed to test that fascinating theory. The problem is that no "respectable" scientists would want to challenge the current it's-all-in-the-brain paradigm.A similar concept is that of the HIndu "Akashic Field" theory, which Ervin Laszlo has updated as a reference to the universal Quantum Field. Yet again, I can accept it as a metaphor, but not as a mechanism. It proposes that the field is like a universal mind, including memory, that humans can tune into. I don't know how you could verify such a theory empirically. — Gnomon
Actually, there are plenty of respectable scientists who are challenging the materialist paradigm. But their tests are necessarily thought experiments, which don't carry much weight with empirical scientists.Perhaps experiments could be designed to test that fascinating theory. The problem is that no "respectable" scientists would want to challenge the current it's-all-in-the-brain paradigm. — Chris Hughes
"The brain is like an antenna" is an analogy. "The brain is an antenna" is a metaphor. And metaphors are too often taken literally, leading to erroneous conclusions. :wink:Thats why it's a metaphor not an analogy. — Chris Hughes
I too have noticed a distinct convergence of opinion on Consciousness in recent years, with non-materialistic interpretations. But there is still plenty of divergence on the details.That we converged to this point from widely separated fields of natural investigation is not insignificant. — Zelebg
Despite having had for some time a keen (amateur) interest in all this (what consciousness is, anti-reductionism, etc), I'd somehow never come across - until now - the philosophical/metaphysical notion of Idealism, meaning (according to Wikipedia) an assertion of the primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena.... an Idealist worldview similar to mine... — Gnomon
Years ago, I was impressed by Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance, when he observed that cells of growing plants appear to know what to do, and where to go, in order to construct the characteristic final form of its species. It's as-if the cells were following a blueprint. Since then, he has broadly expanded his theory into some pretty far-out notions, such as "the feeling of being stared at". But empirical Science is not content with weaving stories around "as-if" metaphors. Instead, it looks for "as-is" mechanisms.Having read and agreed with radical biologist Rupert Sheldake, whose views, I'd say, coinicide with Idealism, I’d be interested to know - if it's not a diversion - what you (and others here) think of his morphic resonance idea, which hypothesises that self-organising systems inherit memory and habit from previous similar systems. — Chris Hughes
I am in the process of building upon my Enformationism cosmological thesis... in order to show why an abstract First Cause is necessary to explain the existence of the physical universe with its metaphysical inhabitants. I have a name for the new website, Enformity... "Enformity" is a coined term defined as the essential quality of an enformed system (e.g. a designed universe as opposed to an accidental universe). — Gnomon
No. Intelligent Evolution.So...intelligent design? — Chris Hughes
Enformy :"Enformity" is a coined term defined as the essential quality of an enformed system (e.g. a designed universe as opposed to an accidental universe) — Gnomon
Researchers have been "reading thoughts" and "watching dreams" for several years using fMRI to display brain-function patterns, and artificial intelligence to interpret those neural patterns as "correlates of consciousness". That's amazing, but objectively observing someone else's subjective consciousness will remain a Holy Grail for years to come.But how funny if this turned out to be the answer we could then perhaps even be able to read thoughts and watch dreams. We would know how it works, but we would still not really know why, and I am afraid that would again leave us feeling the mystery was not actually solved at all. — Zelebg
Very interesting! May I refer you to my thread, "The significance of meaning" which asks if DNA could be the result of random events?... a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
correlates of consciousness — Gnomon
Very interesting! May I refer you to my thread, "The significance of meaning" which asks if DNA could be the result of random events?
is consciousness a type of feeling at all, and if not, then what in the world is it? — Zelebg
First, I am surprised that anything exists at all. Second, I am surprised that what exists experiences itself as existing and wonders what it is. To me, this is astonishing.
There is speculation about this, but no one yet knows how DNA came about. Those who brush aside this problem and its larger question are bending truth.chemical affinity to spontaneously form lipids and self-replicating polymers make DNA
neural patterns — Gnomon
Yes, but Koch still maintains that Consciousness is a holistic function of the body/brain. The "correlates of consciousness" are locations on a map, not the Terrain itself.I've barely started reading Koch's 'The Feeling of Life Itself', and can already see that a certain part of the brain has been identified to be involved with consciousness, this at least localizing thee 'mystery'. — PoeticUniverse
The conscious whole is experienced as the "feeling of being", but is represented to others as the Self -- symbolized as a homunculus : a Mini-Me. The Self functions as the CEO of the corporate body, accepting or rejecting policies (ideas) and plans of action (feelings) submitted by the sub-conscious VP's in charge of various sub-functions of the body. Only the CEO is conscious of the whole system, but even then, only in a general, superficial sense. The Boss may not know exactly where those ideas and feelings came from, but merely judges : "sounds good to me", or "no, that will conflict with other goals".The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, (as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For the nonconscious knows not what it made.) — PoeticUniverse
The Chinese Room thought experiment illustrates that randomness can simulate intelligence (as-if), but cannot create meaning (as-is). So, while DNA most likely evolved via Random processes, any meaning encoded in the chemistry is a product of Selection, which implements Intention.Very interesting! May I refer you to my thread, "The significance of meaning" which asks if DNA could be the result of random events? — Chris Hughes
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.