Consciousness does not exist in relation to neurons or other physical entities. It is experienced by selfs, which happen to be fictional representations generated by brains. Consciousness is a self-experience of fictional characters.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
I really think self is not necessary for awareness/experience/consciousness. With psychedelics people can have ego death in which there is no self, and they still experience things.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming
You are correct. There are states of depersonalization in which the contents of attentional awareness are no longer integrated into a self.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
So contents of attentional awareness = What we are aware of? I don't think you can define awareness like that. Too self referential. There has to be some reason why we are aware of some brain processing and not other brain processing.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming @Plinz
And you can't just point to an abstract area and say "because it is here". One abstract area has to be qualitatively different compared to another, or they would share the same qualities.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming @Plinz
I really think that consciousness is a property of physics, an "assumption" of the universe. Something that is there for no reason, "just because". Consciousness as a physical property can also explain the binding problem, aka why our experience is so integrated together.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming @Plinz
I really would rather you be right, because consciousness like you describe could be relatively easily be programmed in. But I think your version of consciousness would be like writing an equation for a black hole, which doesn't suck things in because numbers/equations !=physics
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming @Plinz
Sure we could use the numbers to emulate reality and create the illusion of awareness, but the numbers would always be qualitatively different compared to physics. Ignoring that would mean we would possible create an AI successor that has no experience,which would be a tragedy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming @Plinz
I totally love all your videos btw. I might just watch them all again. I think you are genius at figuring out how to emulate/model the brain. There is just a very subtle yet extremly important difference between simulation and reality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course. You don't have access to reality. You live in a simulation, generated by your brain.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
If I'm in a simulation then it would be through the physical properties of the universe and not through data processing. Equations, numbers, and data processing lives in their own logical world, which is seperate from reality and without qualia.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DeltrusGaming @Plinz
I misspoke here. I meant that awareness of the simulation is through physical properties, while the simulation itself can be created through data processing etc and should be substrate independant.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.