It seems to me that you are wantonly gluing intuition fragments together. That is fine because you don't try to implement any of that. But I don't think that things that cannot be implemented can be real.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
Exploring flashes of intuition can be helpful. And I doubt I hit the mark on this one, I agree. But you presented me with a fresh idea, which doesn’t happen every day. I’ve not considered this concept of consciousness as a simulation. It’s an exciting idea. Ty
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @chrisfcarroll and
What is your goal? If you want to solve an existential issue, understanding consciousness probably won't help. If you want to solve consciousness, thinking in any other than a rigorous way won't help. Why are you doing this?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
Theoretical physics is a separate specialty from experimental physics. Theoreticians create models (hopefully containing testable hypothesis), and applied physics designs protocols to disprove those hypothesis. This arrangement has worked well, don’t you agree?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @Plinz and
My goal? To separate what is empirically valid from what is metaphysically derivative. To arrange the empirically valid models in a hierarchy of validity (a very complicated process) in an attempt to advance our understanding of consciousness.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @Plinz and
The ultimate goal is to develops a model which allows us to measure and quantify consciousness and thus allows us to empirically define consciousness.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @chrisfcarroll and
Who is "us"? Do you attempt to build a community of people who are confused enough to think that they can first "measure" and even "quantify", and then "empirically define" consciousness? You literally don't know what you are talking about.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
The Community of the Confused. I agree, empirical definitions of consciousness might be impossible. Such complexity might very well be beyond our ability to quantify. But regardless of your opinion on this matter, there are many, many people who are unwilling to just give up.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @chrisfcarroll and
I don't suggest to give up. I am just not sure if you are thinking clearly enough right now to understand the existing work on the problem. For example, I am not sure if you understand 'complexity', and its relationship to 'quantification', and whether that is relevant here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
My hope is that much of complexity of cortical aspects of consciousness can be sidestepped by focusing attention on the relatively simple brainstem affective systems which I place at the foundation of consciousness.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't think so. I can construct the cybernetics of motivation entirely without consciousness.
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.