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?
-
-
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 @Plinz and
It’s already measurable. Consciousness is cognition to analyze and respond to acquire resources and avoid threats. Know the sensory patterns, the environment models, the affective emotions, and learned and impulsive responses and you can predict processing and likely behavior.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SurviveThrive2 @Plinz and
These are verbal solutions unconnected to useful neuroscience evidence. We can’t measure and quantify a concept, even if the concept is 100% correct. And there’s no way to determine if a verbal solution is correct without a testable hypothesis.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @Plinz and
A robot in the middle of the night has a low water level and goes down the hall to the kitchen to get a drink of water. It drinks until satisfied. Same sensing, processing, responses as a person for the same reason. Conscious? Yes. Just on a lower level than a person.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SurviveThrive2 @SimsYStuart and
I can see a robot with “slightly similar sensing & response as a person” but not “same processing“ or “same reason” Water spills to the floor in games with physics engines for&by /utterly/ different reasons & processes as real water. There is no ”gravity, just on a lower level”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisfcarroll @SurviveThrive2 and
When your perception predictively encodes the patterns on your retina as flowing water, the water you perceive flows for different reasons and using different processes as well.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @SurviveThrive2 and
Sorry, I didn't explain my simile: We don't mistake a simulation of gravity for the real thing; at all. Whence the conviction that a simulation of affective experience will illuminate the real thing? Let alone actually /be/ the real thing
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
In one sense that is trivial, in another it is wrong. There are very few people that understand gravity, the others are usually mistaking their mind's simulation of gravity for the real thing. For experience it is worse, because you cannot experience anything outside of a dream.
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.