4 ms·
One of my problems with conceptualizing "consciousness" and ideas such as "attention" or "unconscious processes" is that I have such a fondness for analogies th
by jpasden 11y ago
One of my problems with conceptualizing "consciousness" and ideas such as "attention" or "unconscious processes" is that I have such a fondness for analogies that I am forever trying to find the proper one, and it inevitably comes down to some kind of computer-based analogy like the memory management example given in the article.
Instinctively, I find it absurd that the human brain should work similarly to how human-created computer systems work, and that these analogies should be tossed out, but maybe it actually does make a kind of sense? Is there a convergent evolution occurring whereby we will eventually come to understand human consciousness because the more we improve our computer systems, the closer we come to approximating the fundamental "thinking powers" of the human brain?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tburn 11y agoThere are two situations that I believe will reveal the answers about consciousness: 1. Complete simulation of a human brain and its synapses. This would allow us to see the various states of the brain during its thought processes, and it would probably confirm the Identity theory philosophy of mind. 2. Recreation of convincing consciousness in AI. This mimicry would reveal that consciousness is indeed an illusion, and would confirm the Functionalism philosophy of mind. Consciousness is such a tantalizing subject because it seems like it should be explainable using science, but we just don't have the capacity to understand it yet. This is why it's still firmly in the realm of philosophy, and why there are so many pseudoscientific attempts to explain it.
- fragsworth 11y agoI'm leaning towards defining consciousness as something related to memory, since we would probably all agree that the things we are conscious of are the things we can consciously remember, and vice versa - if we can remember something, we would say that we were conscious of it.
- teekert 11y agoA computer is deterministic, it operates by a set of understandable rules. We know that for sure. For our brain, we don't know. biology is mostly stochastic (unless it has evolved to obtain a certain level of deterministicness). It is difficult to replicate in a machine. But I think humans have a very strong sense that there must be a deeper set of rules that operates our brain and constructs consciousness. Therefor, the creation of a computer with consciousness would prove a certain set of rules exists, and we can understand those rules, even though a computer (as a computer is today) does not function at all like a brain. "What I cannot create, I do not understand" (Feynman), apparently we don't care if the mechanism behind the created thing is different in this case. So I think the lesson learned will be that consciousness can follow from a set of rules but less about how our own consciousness works. Who says there can be only one kind?
- MarkPNeyer 11y agopeople created computers with the image of a brain in mind. the turing machine is originally based upon the idea of a person sitting at a desk, moving a pencil back and forth over a sheet of paper. so it makes perfect sense that you'd use these anologies.