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.
-
-
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 @chrisfcarroll and
Yes, other minds are a construct in your own mind. You cannot learn anything from them without fully reconstructing it yourself. Intellectual progress is fundamentally solitary, because you cannot bind partial understandings across minds. "We" cannot be the agent of thinking.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
That’s a weird statement coming from a scientist. Doesn’t such a notion strike at the heart of the scientific tradition of “standing on the shoulders of giants”? Indeed, it strikes at the heart of the scientific method itself which asserts that empirical validity is increased...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SimsYStuart @Plinz and
... by the number of individuals who observe and measure the same phenomenon (scientific reproducibility).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, I don't think that you have thought about this deeply enough.
-
-
Replying to @Plinz @chrisfcarroll and
I’ve been thinking about this topic and researching ontology, neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy of mind for over 30 years. And I suspect I will continue to do so for the next 30 years. And no amount of complexity or intellectual fortifications will stop that advance.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.