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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @Plinz and
If a “source code” for consciousness exists we will discover it among the homeostatic and emotional affective systems of the brainstem and not in the cortex. And there exists a great deal of empirical evidence which supports that hypothesis.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @chrisfcarroll and
I honestly don't think that this "we" you are talking about (as the agent of understanding and discovery) exists. No communal mind will cover the gaps in your individual understanding. You are completely alone, and don't understand anyone and anything before you do it yourself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
Wow. I’m completely alone. That’s disconcerting. I understand nothing and I’m completely alone in my goal of an empirical science of consciousness. My goodness. I suppose you find some romantic appeal in such a notion.
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/dogs-conscious-computers-brain-scientist-christof-koch-takes-deep-questions/amp/ …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @Plinz and
And I’m pretty sure Andres would disagree that I’m completely alone in the goal of developing an empirical science of consciousness.https://qualiacomputing.com/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You are not alone in the sense that you would be the only person to try it. But I think you have to do all the thinking and understanding by yourself if you hope to really understand anything. You can retrace the journeys of others, but you cannot ride on them.
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.