On Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 12:20 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with Saibal on this and welcome his great explanation. Not to miss > out on not giving credit where credit is due, let me invoke Donald Hoffman > as their chief proponent of conscious agents. Or, the best known. > http://cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/Chapter17Hoffman.pdf > Thanks for sharing it was an interesting read. I thought his "interface" description of our experiences was insightful, and I liked his simplification of consciousness agents. I'm not sure however that I agreed with his theorem that purports to prove inverted qualia. I'll have to read more on that. Jason > > > -----Original Message----- > From: smitra <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, Jun 19, 2021 7:17 am > Subject: Re: Which philosopher or neuro/AI scientist has the best theory > of consciousness? > > Information is the key. Conscious agents are defined by precisely that > information that specifies the content of their consciousness. This > means that a conscious agent can never be precisely located in some > physical object, because the information that describes the conscious > experience will always be less detailed than the information present in > the exact physical description of an object such a brain. There are > always going to be a very large self localization ambiguity due to the > large number of different possible brain states that would generate > exactly the same conscious experience. So, given whatever conscious > experience the agent has, the agent could be in a very large number of > physically distinct states. > > The simpler the brain and the algorithm implemented by the brain, the > larger this self-localization ambiguity becomes because smaller > algorithms contain less detailed information. Our conscious experiences > localizes us very precisely on an Earth-like planet in a solar system > that is very similar to the one we think we live in. But the fly walking > on the wall of the room I'm in right now may have some conscious > experience that is exactly identical to that of another fly walking on > the wall of another house in another country 600 years ago or on some > rock in a cave 35 million year ago. > > The conscious experience of the fly I see on the all is therefore not > located in the particular fly I'm observing. This is i.m.o. the key > thing you get from identifying consciousness with information, it makes > the multiverse an essential ingredient of consciousness. This resolves > paradoxes you get in thought experiments where you consider simulating a > brain in a virtual world and then argue that since the simulation is > deterministic, you could replace the actual computer doing the > computations by a device playing a recording of the physical brain > states. This argument breaks down if you take into account the > self-localization ambiguity and consider that this multiverse aspect is > an essential part of consciousness due to counterfactuals necessary to > define the algorithm being realized, which is impossible in a > deterministic single-world setting. > > Saibal > > > On 18-06-2021 20:46, Jason Resch wrote: > > In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to > > date, or who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them > > wholeheartedly or do you find points if disagreement? > > > > I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure > > which one or which combination is right. For example: > > > > Hofstadter/Marchal: self-reference is key > > Tononi/Tegmark: information is key > > Dennett/Chalmers: function is key > > > > To me all seem potentially valid, and perhaps all three are needed in > > some combination. I'm curious to hear what other viewpoints exist or > > if there are other candidates for the "secret sauce" behind > > consciousness I might have missed. > > > > Jason > > > > -- > > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com > > [1]. > > > > > > Links: > > ------ > > [1] > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUik%3Du724L6JxAKi0gq-rPfV%3DXwGd7nS2kmZ_znLd7MT1g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd53588153f2debae241dbb41e48b60a%40zonnet.nl. > > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/901280005.1412392.1624123221433%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/901280005.1412392.1624123221433%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj1XHw%2BSct%2BZfBUpPnjq6sT%2BMGpqCtLuWmPYbwR7kDNbw%40mail.gmail.com.
