But how can this ever be possible?
But how can this ever be possible?
That will be the day.the same way we determine if anything is conscious.
I cant really put my finger on it. As a species we ve had (or maybe in some cases still having) enough problems to recognize consciousness in animals. Just mentioning Des Cartes for the sake of conversation; he argued that only humans are conscious.
lol
Well
It took us more than two centuries by then to actively recognize and research animal consciousness. (I am not referring to the Problem of Other Minds, which I believe is part of Philosophical Skepticism).
Wittgenstein wrote: "If the lion could speak, we could not understand it." I am only curious if and how could we even realize or perceive (and of course how long would that take us) that there is a communicative intention (which of course presupposes that quarks are conscious).
To be honest I find it highly unlikely. Not because I reject the notion of a conscious quark (a conscious quark would not have already communicated with us ever since the double-split experiment, no?), but because the same definitions collapse , start to have no meaning and lead us to quantum mysticism.
As part of the physical world, are we not made of quarks? Could it be that maybe we ourselves are the manifestation of quark consciousness? [It sounds New-Agey, but not my intention.At all. ]
Finally, this quark consciousness, does it have free will?
Is it possible that we just "want" to shift the problem of consciousness to the quantum world and so we interpret everything we see around us through the confirmation bias of the already-induced-in-us religious (pantheistic, mystic) ideas? Is the quantum consciousness free will more free or even so, by human consciousness standards?
(to be quite frank with you, I have not yet read the entire thread here but I am about to finish reading it one of these days. If this has already been answered, then please ignore it. Thank you)
After all these decades we have still not produced computers with the capabilities of a brain, so what evidence are you looking for?
"Flawed theory" doesn't quite put it. The claim that a conscious mind could be created algorithmically is an idea which - measured by the level of its substantiation and the lack of success in implementing it - is comparable with the alchemist idea of creating gold from common metals.
Even in living beings, consciousness doesn't just so pop up from brain activity. Major part of our brain activity doesn't involve consciousness. Just simulating a brain won't do the job unless you're satisfied with a perfect simulation of a coma patient. So even if one thinks he can build Mr. Data, he won't be able to do so if he hasn't figured out before how consciousness works.
The dominance of this view might be one of the reasons why there isn't a theory yet that would explain consciousness. As long as people are in denial that there's something fundamental missing, they're not going to look for it.
Complete nonsense. Consciousness is informational. All informational processes can either be replicated precisely by an algorithm, or approached to arbitrary precision by an algorithm.
Explain to a blind person what it is like to see.
Explain why you think that is relevant.
Because science doesn't explain subjective experience. The taste of sugar, the color red, pain. Science can observe brain activity, identify the neorons involved with the experience, describe how they are operating, but it cannot explain or even describe the subjective experience that goes along with it. Why doesn't the brain just run on autopilot without a mind acknowledging what is going on, as it actually does for most of its tasks, eg. the controlling of our digesting system?
Because, if you had thought about it, the thought might have helped you realize that your claim is wrong. Consciousness is based on impressions that cannot be reduced to information, facts, data. You cannot really explain what it feels like to see to someone who is not familiar with the concept in the first place. He wouldn't grasp what it really feels like.
Is it really the claim that consciousness can be created algorithmically? Neural computer systems have an algorithm that make them neural, but it does not make them do what they are supposed to do - that can only happen through teaching, which is non-algorithmic.
To explain subjective phenomena, a theory would be required that isn't logically compatible with the absence of them. While I'm not sure that science as a whole will never achieve that, I am certain that reductive analyses of the brain won't lead anywhere, because reductionism asserts that the whole is the sum of its parts and just that. Reductionist theories are thus compatible with the absence of subjective phenomena. Therefore, they cannot explain them.
The explaining part is easy: you have already outlined possible elements for this explanation. Is a description using subjective terms really necessary for understanding consciousness?
Because this is not enough for survival?
Subjective experiences are just what experiences look from the inside. There is nothing to it, and certainly nothing that should present difficulty for the models.
Fortunately, as explained above, subjective phenomena are not a problem. Any system has subjective experiences, but only a conscious system can tell about them.
Neural computer systems cannot be understood by studying the program alone, if ever. The brain as a computer likewise is not reductionist, but just about as holistic as can get it. Still, the whole cannot exist without its parts, so we still need to know how the neurons of the brain work.
I have not read that paper, but I am tempted to point out that it is also difficult to imagine what it is like to be a neural computer system. There is certainly pain, because it is built to avoid actions that lead to punishment. But is there pleasure when rewarded?
