How can a pack of discrete, membrane-bound, essentially classical neurons be anything other than discrete pixels of classical “mind-dust"?
Replace neuron with anything else, you only have billiard balls of micro experiences. No matter how complex or integrated your classically parallel connectionist system is - there is no unity of consciousness
Only an aggregate.
No story of functional connectivity explains how elementary classical “pixels” of experience could combine to generate perceptual objects populating unified world-simulations run by a unitary subject of experience.
what makes us different? binding.
“local” phenomenal binding (individual perceptual objects) or “global” phenomenal binding (the fleeting unity of perception and the synchronous unity of the self)
what could be the mechanism of binding? how about a nonclassical explanation? this is for another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde
Because you are communicating with laymen. When communicating with a lay-audience it has to be much more of a back-and-forth question-and-answer Teacher/Student relationship, in order that you can educate us laymen to the level of understanding you need them to be at to have a proper discussion about logic gates and the fundamental difference between Nature-generated consciousness and Man-generated consciousness (something I am very interested in learning).
You seem to take this for granted but as far as I am concerned it is not a closed subject, and if it was, you would be defending it a lot less I think (think defending evolution vs. just writing someone off as not understanding it).
I think you intimidate people from interacting with you about this because it's more of a "versus" rather than trying to reach a mutual agreement. I think this mindset extends to a large portion of our global culture also.
|
Kant's View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)