Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
-----Original Message----- From: ghibbsa <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its exhaustion, maybe up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) i Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. ion If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code? What decides what object and experiences what consciousness, and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM? Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly of that code? , Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
