That's absolute garbage, we can get a pretty good idea about the level of consciousness in inanimate materials by knowing more about where that state comes from in us, the brain.
Everything in that definition of consciousness in humans can be mapped to a specific section of the brain, knock that part out, and the associated component of consciousness goes with it.
Knock out the whole brain, and all of consciousness goes with it, in humans consciousness is what brains do, it is merely the product of the state our brain is in.
There is no consciousness in anything lacking a brain that is complex and developed enough to produce a conscious state, therefore, we can say with certainty that inanimate materials do not possess the capability of consciousness, we can go further and even evaluate the level of consciousness in animate living beings, and we can say that a lot of the very simple animals that live are not conscious, furthermore, we can also pinpoint the exact levels of consciousness in complex animals, such as humans, as they develop, and we can state that there is a difference between different stages of life in terms of levels of consciousness.
I agree with your general premise, these "scientists" claiming that rocks are conscious seems more like some new age faux spiritualism than anything based on actual empirical data or observation.
What gets interesting is when things like neural networks get advanced enough to properly simulate consciousness, at what point does a bunch of code stop being different than the bunch of neurons in the human brain?
more like some new age faux spiritualism than anything based on actual empirical data or observation.
Haven't you seen the white-papers coming out of research in the last few decades? This is modern science now.
Unfortunately, yes.
How low can academia be stomped into the ground by overzealous dogmatists and their jewish masters?
when things like neural networks get advanced enough to properly simulate consciousness, at what point does a bunch of code stop being different than the bunch of neurons in the human brain?
The problem with this (and what Penrose proposed) is that it presupposes that physical processes cause consciousness. It may be that consciousness came before matter, and matter is a development of it, rather than the other way around.
It's important to properly define consciousness before starting to make any claims about it at all. What are it's parameters? Does it exist on a scale of development (i.e. are there varying degrees of simple and more complex forms of it)? Where does it reside? Is it holistic? Is it divisible?
If a neural network were to be designed that was conscious (by whatever definition we give it), would it be a property of the software, the hardware, or both?
Just some thoughts....
Never. Code is software, software will never be sentient, it could only simulate it more or less accurately. Code is informational, like saying a cooking recipe could become sentient. Neurons are physical, hardware. Everything in the brain is hardware, or in this case, wetware.
But physical neural networks, as in neuromorphic computers? Now you're talking.
The hardware doesn't matter. You can be using Conway's game of life, computers, or the human brain to do the data processing and computation. It's called substrate independence. It's the same kind of thing in the end. If your computational device can do universal computation it is able to emulate computation on any other device. The brain does data processing and so does a computer, and there is no reason why the computer can't emulate the brain.
More importantly - if "everything is conscious," what are the sublevels of consciousness? For example, we know a fully-grown human is conscious. But what about that human's left eye? Does it have consciousness? Or is it just the atoms of the left eye? Or the cells? Or the pigment in the iris? How do you subdivide everything that should be conscious in this model? You can't just say "atoms have consciousness, then humans." What about 2 atoms? A molecule? Etc. etc. on up to every subgrouping (nearly infinite, maybe infinite because humans don't exist in a vacuum) that constitutes a human.
I think where they're trying to take this is: When everything is conscious, nothing is. Therefore we have no agency.
And if they're not trying to take it there, well, it's an obvious outcome so they're stupid scientists. Absolutely stupid scientists exist.
Consider Rupert Sheldrake's concept of .
Also, consider the idea that nothing is conscious without something else to refer to. Two atoms that refer to each other will do so in some logical manner, so logic is probably a key to determining if something is conscious, and how much so. Purpose is probably another key determinant.
How do chemicals know how to react with each other if they aren't aware of each other?
Electromagnetic frequencies. Harmonic frequencies attract while disharmonic frequencies repel. This is how chemicals are bound together at the molecular level. Same with molecules at the atomic level.
And the macro level.
Says who? If information hasn't been transferred then there's no energy exchange. There is a proto-awareness. Your thoughts are wrong.
How did something with no awareness give rise to something with awareness, do you realize how dumb that sounds? No if we are made of chemicals, and we have awareness, then chemicals have awareness as well.
Look at the similarities, when you form chemical bonds, energy is released, when you form bonds with humans, energy is released. When you break chemical bonds, energy is absorbed, when you break human bonds, you feel like shit.
Ghosts don’t have brains.. nor do poltergeists
I don’t really know how to respond. Are you retarded, or just ignorant?
(post is archived)