On Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 12:20 PM spudboy100 via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> 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 <smi...@zonnet.nl> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUj1XHw%2BSct%2BZfBUpPnjq6sT%2BMGpqCtLuWmPYbwR7kDNbw%40mail.gmail.com.
