"Artificial general intelligence will need an incubatory stage possessed of a body (or bodies), me thinks." I suppose it could be a virtual body for the sake of learning by navigating an adversarial virtual environment. And then *we* can divest ourselves of our flabby, fleshy forms and join with AI...
Debates in philosophy of mind and the neurosciences concerning the nature of consciousness have raged for several decades and show no sign of abating. I've studied the issue from the perspectives of both philosophy and cognitive neuroscience and, in my view, two authors from very different backgrounds made seminal contributions to the field: Daniel Dennett in *Consciousness Explained* and Gerald Edelman in *The Remembered Present*. Most of what has been written, even by eminent academics, is, at best highly speculative metaphysical theory in search of any kind of empirical basis.
That's because the attempt to understand consciousness echoes the early, misguided, explanations of the phenomenon of heat as the effect of caloric fluid. The error there was in looking for a substance that corresponded to the phenomenon. Similarly, all efforts to understand consciousness as anything other than an epiphenomenon of other (entirely non-conscious) processes will fail. Nothing is fundamentally conscious. Any such view misunderstands the basic nature of the various phenomena that typically get lumped together under that heading.
People get very, very passionate about this issue. Careers have been made on unsupported theories. In my view, it's just the modern version of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm virtually certain you'll disagree. :)
I do :) Just because something is epiphenomenal doesn't mean it cannot be understood*. What "unconscious processes" are you referring to? Also, are you referring to quantum mechanics as metaphysics in your comment?
Those sound like interesting books to check out! Thank you for reading and commenting :)
Edited to say: We can't observe, but we can still *infer* mental representation of the mind etc the way we do the existence of fundamental particles:
1. Consciousness can and should be studied even though it's not directly observable and is epiphenomenal of neural activity (microtubules, atoms, subatomic particles)
2. A model of consciousness need only be a comprehensive explanation of the conditions required for consciousness to emerge
Thank you for replying in such an interesting and thoughtful way. First, I should have said "non-conscious," rather than "unconscious," in my parenthetical descriptor of the processes that give rise to the epiphenomena we call consciousness. I think it was Dennett who pointed out that, if we ascribe consciousness to some set of brain processes *x*, we can be sure that the neural substrates of x include neurons that are necessary to maintain those processes. Yet we (probably) don't think that the neurons are themselves, individually conscious.
Obviously, this point doesn't exclusively apply to neurons, but also to molecules, atoms, etc. The takeaway is that consciousness must be an emergent phenomenon, supervening on phenomena that are not themselves inherently conscious. That is, if you don't embrace the idea that consciousness is an irreducible property of the universe, much like energy. That's a coherent position (barely, imho), but it's essentially a religious argument that couches pantheism in sciencey language. Fine, if that's your thing, but I prefer a universe that's available to empirical and rational exploration.
WRT "is quantum mechanics metaphysics" ... well, that's a pretty big question. When I use the term metaphysics, I mean it in the philosophical sense, by which it refers to a thriving and fundamental branch of philosophy (one of the 3 basic branches, according to many, if not most, taxonomists of philosophy). A major stream within philosophical metaphysics is ontology, the study of what there is (btw, you should also read W. V. Quine's brilliant paper "On what there is", if you haven't. I'd categorize it as essential reading for anyone who wants to think deeply about these matters). Clearly, one cannot address questions about the essential constituents of reality without considering quantum mechanics. So, yes, I think much about quantum mechanics is quintessential metaphysics. Please note that I don't by any means intend to diminish its status as valid science by saying that.
Finally, re your two numbered points: 1: Absolutely, no question. 2: That's a really interesting idea and I'll have to noodle on it. If I'm correct in my basic claim that consciousness is epiphenomenal, that would probably be the *only* way to model it. I have the rough algorithm for creating consciousness in a computer (just the good old non-quantum variety). The emergence of consciousness would depend on getting the constituent processes right, so, yes, providing the conditions necessary for consciousness to emerge.
Thank you for another thoughtful response and recommendation for what to read :)
PS: I will subject the artificial intelligence you develop to the same rigorous test I put GPT-3 to ;)
PPS: Don't agree that quantum mechanics is related to metaphysics or ontology (philosophy and science are totally different methods of inquiry), but thanks for clarifying what you meant in your original post.
"Artificial general intelligence will need an incubatory stage possessed of a body (or bodies), me thinks." I suppose it could be a virtual body for the sake of learning by navigating an adversarial virtual environment. And then *we* can divest ourselves of our flabby, fleshy forms and join with AI...
Debates in philosophy of mind and the neurosciences concerning the nature of consciousness have raged for several decades and show no sign of abating. I've studied the issue from the perspectives of both philosophy and cognitive neuroscience and, in my view, two authors from very different backgrounds made seminal contributions to the field: Daniel Dennett in *Consciousness Explained* and Gerald Edelman in *The Remembered Present*. Most of what has been written, even by eminent academics, is, at best highly speculative metaphysical theory in search of any kind of empirical basis.
That's because the attempt to understand consciousness echoes the early, misguided, explanations of the phenomenon of heat as the effect of caloric fluid. The error there was in looking for a substance that corresponded to the phenomenon. Similarly, all efforts to understand consciousness as anything other than an epiphenomenon of other (entirely non-conscious) processes will fail. Nothing is fundamentally conscious. Any such view misunderstands the basic nature of the various phenomena that typically get lumped together under that heading.
People get very, very passionate about this issue. Careers have been made on unsupported theories. In my view, it's just the modern version of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm virtually certain you'll disagree. :)
I do :) Just because something is epiphenomenal doesn't mean it cannot be understood*. What "unconscious processes" are you referring to? Also, are you referring to quantum mechanics as metaphysics in your comment?
Those sound like interesting books to check out! Thank you for reading and commenting :)
Edited to say: We can't observe, but we can still *infer* mental representation of the mind etc the way we do the existence of fundamental particles:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2020/06/08/the-2d-gremlin-in-our-head-distorting-3d-reality-johns-hopkins-study/?sh=647f6a211c25
In my opinion:
1. Consciousness can and should be studied even though it's not directly observable and is epiphenomenal of neural activity (microtubules, atoms, subatomic particles)
2. A model of consciousness need only be a comprehensive explanation of the conditions required for consciousness to emerge
Thank you for replying in such an interesting and thoughtful way. First, I should have said "non-conscious," rather than "unconscious," in my parenthetical descriptor of the processes that give rise to the epiphenomena we call consciousness. I think it was Dennett who pointed out that, if we ascribe consciousness to some set of brain processes *x*, we can be sure that the neural substrates of x include neurons that are necessary to maintain those processes. Yet we (probably) don't think that the neurons are themselves, individually conscious.
Obviously, this point doesn't exclusively apply to neurons, but also to molecules, atoms, etc. The takeaway is that consciousness must be an emergent phenomenon, supervening on phenomena that are not themselves inherently conscious. That is, if you don't embrace the idea that consciousness is an irreducible property of the universe, much like energy. That's a coherent position (barely, imho), but it's essentially a religious argument that couches pantheism in sciencey language. Fine, if that's your thing, but I prefer a universe that's available to empirical and rational exploration.
WRT "is quantum mechanics metaphysics" ... well, that's a pretty big question. When I use the term metaphysics, I mean it in the philosophical sense, by which it refers to a thriving and fundamental branch of philosophy (one of the 3 basic branches, according to many, if not most, taxonomists of philosophy). A major stream within philosophical metaphysics is ontology, the study of what there is (btw, you should also read W. V. Quine's brilliant paper "On what there is", if you haven't. I'd categorize it as essential reading for anyone who wants to think deeply about these matters). Clearly, one cannot address questions about the essential constituents of reality without considering quantum mechanics. So, yes, I think much about quantum mechanics is quintessential metaphysics. Please note that I don't by any means intend to diminish its status as valid science by saying that.
Finally, re your two numbered points: 1: Absolutely, no question. 2: That's a really interesting idea and I'll have to noodle on it. If I'm correct in my basic claim that consciousness is epiphenomenal, that would probably be the *only* way to model it. I have the rough algorithm for creating consciousness in a computer (just the good old non-quantum variety). The emergence of consciousness would depend on getting the constituent processes right, so, yes, providing the conditions necessary for consciousness to emerge.
Thank you for another thoughtful response and recommendation for what to read :)
PS: I will subject the artificial intelligence you develop to the same rigorous test I put GPT-3 to ;)
PPS: Don't agree that quantum mechanics is related to metaphysics or ontology (philosophy and science are totally different methods of inquiry), but thanks for clarifying what you meant in your original post.