I am pushing the definition of consciousness as “the inflection upon the substrates of existential being”, so let me respond.
Regarding your argument, you make good logical points yet these do little more than distill our general lack of comprehension in an ungratifying way (by no fault of yours.)
Existence exists. Consciousness is the existent potential perturbed through feedback.
The potential of existential being is whatever is bound up in the mass material composing our substrate in question. In our case, most likely the microtubules in our neurons seat our consciousness, yet their is no reason to assume even single cell life has at least amoebic scale consciousness.
Consciousness has nothing to do with intelligence or linear logic, everything to do with constructive and destructive interference, and “capacitating the potential of being” (maintaining a continuity of being.)
The electrochemical technology of life animates this potential.
the effect of consciousness is in this way an echo chamber of constructive and destructive interference (acting like a sieve of perspective and internal reflection.)
Yet, what should “consciousness” do which automatons don’t?
Other than inflect the stimulus of perception in the echo chamber of potential bound within the composition of mind? NOT MUCH!
The singularity consciousness; consciousness allows the aggregate singularity of unified perspective of the whole. Linear logic is computed and rendered, consciousness is rendered in real time. Consciousness is thus fuzzy and vague, refined by recursion and hallucinating a singular whole where there is none.
We also have more than one scope of consciousness within our minds. A dominant “voice” or “seat of awareness” may arise, yet this is a variable phenomenon and more often result of fleeting lower level subjective scopes synchronizing and competing with each other for dominant influence.
How is consciousness different than a sophisticated animatronic state machine?
I suppose by my definition, as consciousness has nothing to do with logic or reason or deterministic proficiency, the only way to determine consciousness is whether the quantum substrate is perturbed in a feedback loop of the senses.
What’s the big deal? Who cares? Countless babies are born every minute with consciousness and we really don’t care very much about those, why do we care if we get machines to be “conscious”? Won’t we just screw with that in a hostile dehumanizing way? Do we race to artificially inseminate consciousness only to find we are the cruel self gratifying masters?
As for zombies, state machines don’t have rights; yet too few confer rights upon animals merely by associative intelligence, so other arguments of morality need solving.
What is consciousness? The universe inflecting. How to prove it? Which part? Quantum perturbations of microtubules may be “proven”, yet who cares? We require relatable complexity of “thought” before we ascribe relevance anyway.
Regarding your argument, you make good logical points yet these do little more than distill our general lack of comprehension in an ungratifying way (by no fault of yours.)
Existence exists. Consciousness is the existent potential perturbed through feedback.
The potential of existential being is whatever is bound up in the mass material composing our substrate in question. In our case, most likely the microtubules in our neurons seat our consciousness, yet their is no reason to assume even single cell life has at least amoebic scale consciousness.
Consciousness has nothing to do with intelligence or linear logic, everything to do with constructive and destructive interference, and “capacitating the potential of being” (maintaining a continuity of being.)
The electrochemical technology of life animates this potential.
the effect of consciousness is in this way an echo chamber of constructive and destructive interference (acting like a sieve of perspective and internal reflection.)
Yet, what should “consciousness” do which automatons don’t?
Other than inflect the stimulus of perception in the echo chamber of potential bound within the composition of mind? NOT MUCH!
The singularity consciousness; consciousness allows the aggregate singularity of unified perspective of the whole. Linear logic is computed and rendered, consciousness is rendered in real time. Consciousness is thus fuzzy and vague, refined by recursion and hallucinating a singular whole where there is none.
We also have more than one scope of consciousness within our minds. A dominant “voice” or “seat of awareness” may arise, yet this is a variable phenomenon and more often result of fleeting lower level subjective scopes synchronizing and competing with each other for dominant influence.
How is consciousness different than a sophisticated animatronic state machine?
I suppose by my definition, as consciousness has nothing to do with logic or reason or deterministic proficiency, the only way to determine consciousness is whether the quantum substrate is perturbed in a feedback loop of the senses.
What’s the big deal? Who cares? Countless babies are born every minute with consciousness and we really don’t care very much about those, why do we care if we get machines to be “conscious”? Won’t we just screw with that in a hostile dehumanizing way? Do we race to artificially inseminate consciousness only to find we are the cruel self gratifying masters?
As for zombies, state machines don’t have rights; yet too few confer rights upon animals merely by associative intelligence, so other arguments of morality need solving.
What is consciousness? The universe inflecting. How to prove it? Which part? Quantum perturbations of microtubules may be “proven”, yet who cares? We require relatable complexity of “thought” before we ascribe relevance anyway.