The feeling of being a self in its world by being a prediction machine with its collection of interpretive habits. — apokrisis

How is that feeling generated from non-feeling matter? Why is there a feeling at all? Why is there a feeling associated with some brain processes but not others? Doesn't the regulation of hormones and digestion, to give two examples, involve prediction and habituation? Could that feeling be generated in machines? How would you test whether an alien species has this feeling?

One of the more powerful arguments Dennett (I think it's Dennett) makes is that we are wrong about consciousness in the same way that an ancient Greek is wrong that, when standing still, he's not moving through space at an incredible speed, and that given enough time, we will realize we are just as in error about what consciousness is.

Come on, read what he said! ::snaps fingers:: pay attention! What's wrong with you?

Which philosopher and/or paper most closely matches your view on consciousness?

You (supposedly) have discussions with luminaries yet you can't answer the most basic of questions and hide behind jargon. This is a philosophy forum (nay, THEphilosophyforum). Put your ideas out there!

Are you an eliminativist? Do you think ChatGpt is conscious?

Hence, if a robot or computer program can report on inputs – with Chat GTP as one example of this - it is then as conscious as anything else.

...

Apo is an eliminativist who deems all speak of first-person awareness and, hence, of consciousness to be a linguistic social construct devoid of real referent(s). — javra

You're making Apo sound like an idiot! No offense to either of you, of course.



Are you an eliminativist?

Apo thinks:

A system, typically a brain, is conscious iff it creates a model of it's environment it uses to make predictions. Consciousness is the action or function of doing this. — bert1

That begs a lot of interesting questions about machine consciousness, yet so far I can't get Apo to byte on any of that. What's the big deal???

What's so hard to understand here?
— apokrisis

Your views — bert1

I see I'm not the only one.



Can you explain, in words of as few syllables as possible, what you think consciousness is?

What do you think of Koch losing his bet to Chalmers? Do you think Koch is ever going to win that bet (assuming he lives long enough)? — RogueAI

So get the story about "consciousness" right and all the more interesting scientific questions start to flow. — apokrisis

When do you think that will happen?

If you call being qualified to speak to the OP a problem, then you’re probably right. I’m probably the only one to have discussed all this with Chalmers, Koch, Friston, etc. — apokrisis

What do you think of Koch losing his bet to Chalmers? Do you think Koch is ever going to win that bet (assuming he lives long enough)?

At best, consciousness = attention + reporting. — apokrisis

Can machines be conscious?

At best, consciousness = attention + reporting. A jumping spider has something that is primitively like what we would call attentional processing. But it doesn’t speak so can’t report or introspect. — apokrisis

Speaking and/or reporting are necessary conditions for consciousness and/or introspection??? Is a jumping spider conscious or not?

A newborn cannot speak or report. Is it conscious?

If you call being qualified to speak to the OP a problem, then you’re probably right. I’m probably the only one to have discussed all this with Chalmers, Koch, Friston, etc. — apokrisis

OK, Mr. I'm-so-qualified :razz: Riddle me this:

According to your theory of mind/consciousness, are insects conscious? Do they have minds?
https://www.noemamag.com/the-surprisingly-sophisticated-mind-of-an-insect/

And keep your answer as free from jargon as possible, for all the stupid people here. Good philosophy is clear and concise.

If you're having problems with multiple people here, perhaps the problem is not the other people?

Then there are the groups that remain in the pre-woke shadows, like working class white men--a group that has historically been discounted. The plight of workers in general isn't prominent, and it will probably be a cold day in hell before public media gives extended attention to the exploitation of the working class by the predatory rich. One rarely hears much about the history of organized labor, unions, unionization, or corporate and legislative efforts to block unionization. — BC

I can't back up what I'm saying with stats, but my impression of NPR from listening to it while driving home is that they have given quite a bit of airtime to efforts to unionize Amazon "fulfilment" centers and Starbucks. NPR also covers the opioid crisis more than the other liberal news outlets, imo.

Yeah, materialism does seem to entail it.

It's the obvious and PR loaded reasons for the change. their 'racist guilt'. — BC

Isn't it possible they want to highlight historically underrepresented groups and correct an unfairness that has been the status quo for a very long time?

The good thing about both IIT and GNWT is that they take experience as something real. This is what Strawson called a physicalist realist position. Some continue to deny conscious experience as real — the Eliminativists. But Koch, Tononi and others don’t agree with this most silly of conclusions. It shows the degree to which the physicalist dogma can force some into extreme philosophical or metaphysical positions.

How people ever talked themselves into something as nonsensical as eliminativism, I'll never understand, but thankfully it's well on its way to the ash heap of history.

It just goes to show you that even though the MAGA base is fiercely loyal to Trump if he diverges too far from their core values or beliefs they will boo him and voice their disapproval. — GRWelsh

Yes, if anyone shows even a modicum of intelligence and/or compassion, except for the "plight" of white people, they become persona non grata.

As for asking God for $100 to put on a horse in the fifth race at Pimlico... there's a whole branch of Christianity that works at that - prosperity gospel. — T Clark

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/01/09/trump-prosperity-gospel-same-lie-neither-christians-grace-column/2835189001/

It figures that if Trump were aligned with any faith, it would be prosperity gospel.

Sending people positive mental energy (praying for them) is never a bad thing. It's pretty egotistical to think you can bend God to your will, but it's also an unselfish act. Praying for oneself, however...that's kind of selfish. What the prayerful person should do is use the mental energy praying to introspect and lead a better life, and maybe good things will happen.

What do you think of this?

"Microorganisms demonstrate conscious-like intelligent behaviour, and this form of consciousness may have emerged from a quantum mediated mechanism as observed in cytoskeletal structures like the microtubules present in nerve cells which apparently have the architecture to quantum compute. This paper hypothesises the emergence of proto-consciousness in primitive cytoskeletal systems found in the microbial kingdoms of archaea, bacteria and eukarya. To explain this, we make use of the Subject-Object Model (SOM) of consciousness which evaluates the rise of the degree of consciousness to conscious behaviour in these systems supporting the hypothesis of emergence and propagation of conscious behaviour during the pre-Cambrian part of Earth's evolutionary history. Consciousness as proto-consciousness or sentience computed via primitive cytoskeletal structures substantiates as a driver for the intelligence observed in the microbial world during this period ranging from single-cellular to collective intelligence as a means to adapt and survive. The growth in complexity of intelligence, cytoskeletal system and adaptive behaviours are key to evolution, and thus supports the progression of the Lamarckian theory of evolution driven by quantum mediated proto-consciousness to consciousness as described in the SOM of consciousness."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29254105/#:~:text=Abstract,the%20architecture%20to%20quantum%20compute.

Are microorganisms conscious? What do you think of the "Subject-Object Model (SOM) of consciousness"?

Our Bayesian models of the world include the construction of the self within the model as the necessary "other" of this world. — apokrisis

Does anything that produces/utilizes a "Bayesian model of the world" have a self and/or consciousness? Also, why do some brain processes involve consciousness while others don't?

:100:

What about when we ascribe adjectives to our mind? Are we in error when we do that?

I would define "mind" as the sum total of an entities mental processes which include thinking, feeling, perceiving, knowing, remembering, being aware, being self-aware, proprioception, and lots of stuff I'm leaving out. I think all of those things are observable from the outside (third person observation) and many are observable from the inside (introspection). — T Clark

So mind is a thing, not a process? Or both?

And Bernie hung on way too long, needlessly damaging Clinton and preventing her from pivoting to the genera election.

What definition of “consciousness” can you present here such that it could be subject to experimental investigation? — apokrisis

Suppose we discovered the perfectly preserved corpse of an alien in one of their spaceships. For any definition of "conscious", what experiments could we do to ascertain whether the alien was ever conscious when it was alive?

You sound like the kid in the back seat. “Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”

You have failed to engage with the points I made and I don’t feel I need to run you through it again. — apokrisis

"Do Insects Have Consciousness and Ego?
The brains of insects are similar to a structure in human brains, which could show a rudimentary form of consciousness"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/do-insects-have-consciousness-ego-180958824/

What say you? Do you think it's significant that Smithsonian Magazine is taking insect consciousness seriously? Would a simulation of a working brain be conscious? Are functional equivalents of working brains conscious, no matter what the substrate? And why did you put "consciousness" in quotes?

Hey, you're the one who brought up evolution. Instead of getting defensive, just answer the questions.

If you can... :grin:

A theory of “consciousness” is just the pursuit of a ghostly spirit stuff. Or can you frame the task in a way that is scientific rather than a search for immaterial being? — apokrisis

Science should be able to explain something as fundamental as consciousness, shouldn't it? And why is "consciousness" in quotes?

There really do seem go be good guys and bad guys in this conflict. Russia, China, and Iran are the Axis powers, while U.S. and other democracies are the Allies.

:100:

Panpsychism is a gateway philosophy. It eventually leads to idealism.

Progress is about the generality of showing how consciousness is just the result of the evolutionary elaboration of biosemiosis — apokrisis

When did consciousness first show up? Are insects conscious? Can machines become conscious?

People like Koch, Kastrup, and Tononi have PhD's in science. The idea that only philosophers worry about consciousness is decades out of date.

Maybe there is more of focus now than thirty years ago...I don't really know. Maybe it's a category mistake to expect neuroscience to explain consciousness as we intuitively understand it. Maybe that understanding itself is due to reifications of linguistically generated ideas. I don't think it's a problem which really matters much to how we live our lives—there are far more pressing problems facing us right now. — Janus

That's true for much of science. The JWST gives us pretty pictures, but doesn't have much impact on the problems facing us. Should we not have spent billions on it?

You can only paper over problems for so long. Eventually the shut up-and-calculate approach fails, and the hard problems become more and more embarrassing.

I don't think the so-called "hard problem" is the main, or even a significant, focus of neuroscience. It's mostly the philosophers who worry about it. — Janus

I think there's more of a focus now than there was thirty years ago, don't you? Science seeks to explain phenomena, correct? So I ask again: what should we do if neuroscience still hasn't explained consciousness 1,000 years from now?

Neuroscience may not have explained first person experience, but it has discovered plenty about the workings of the brain. — Janus

Sure, but it's come up empty on the hard problem. If there's still no solution in 1,000 years, what should we do?

I don't see any alternative for science than the Galilean approach — Janus

That approach doesn't seem to be working. How long do you think we should stick with it?