Stathis, not that I want a straw-man regurgitation... I take you underlined by *"It seems that when the brain is working properly the person is conscious, while if the brain malfunctions or is destroyed the consciousness is affected or stops."* your originally posted *"What we know is that the brain can generate consciousness..."* How about the reverse? if the brain is the tool for a 'higher(?)' item we just don't know about (we THINK we do?) that would put the cart ahead of the horse. John M
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Stathis: >> you wrote Aug.19: >> >> *"What we know is that the brain can generate consciousness. The brain is >> not a digital computer running a program, but if it can be simulated by >> one, and if the simulation is conscious, and if the program can be "run" in >> Platonia rather than on a physical computer, then every possible brain's >> consciousness will necessarily be instantiated. I'm not sure whether >> self-referential computations on their own are conscious - that would seem >> a further assumption on top of the three mentioned in the previous sentence >> - even though it does seem more elegant than simulating klunky brains.* >> >> Let's skip the question of defining Ccness (maybe broader than BEING >> ccous) and let me ask HOW do you know that the brain can generate 'it'? Do >> you have a brain that never had 'it' and followed a process BY it(!) >> generating Ccness? >> > > It seems that when the brain is working properly the person is conscious, > while if the brain malfunctions or is destroyed the consciousness is > affected or stops. > > >> Those experiments in which computer etc. (NOT some 'brain'-input) >> 're-started' the process were all carried out on (live?) "brains" >> previously capable of doing it (whatever). >> I agree that "*The brain is not a digital computer running a >> program,...". * >> Are ALL details of the so called "brain"(function?) mapped and >> correlated? Are all facets of 'brain' even knowable? we think we know some. >> Then newer items are detected (or thought so) and included smoothly into >> the previous setup. >> IMO we are far from being able to 'simulating' a human brain in its >> entirety. >> > > Yes, we are far from achieving this but we can speak about what can be > done *provided* there is no non-computable physics in the brain. All these > discussions we have are predicated on assumptions like this, which science > could prove wrong. > > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
