Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos  If you insist that there is no way that consciousness can arise from brain function, then I agree that a little man does nothing for you. In fact, no additional brain functions do anything for you, because you do not believe that brain function can explain consciousness. If, however, you think it's possible that brain function can explain consciousness, than a central function monitoring other functions (the little man) might have explanatory power.
What's the difference, again?
~~ Paul |
Well the little man seems to figure implicitly in all the conventional theories of consciousness. Multiple drafts are like pieces of paper coming off a word processor - if nobody reads them, what good are they? My take on this is that if the brain can be replaced by a computer - even in principle - then it can't be solely responsible for consciousness.
I am beginning to think that devising a totally physical theory of consciousness is a bit like building a radio out of LEGGO bricks. You can build all sorts of great things out of those bricks - even a Taj_Mahal - but they just don't do electronics (at least not when I was a kid) - so you can make a LEGGO case with a LEGGO volume control that really turns, and a LEGGO aerial, but however hard you try, it never works as a radio! This is, of course, just another way of expressing David Chalmers' views.
The term 'self awareness' is sometimes used as a synonym for consciousness, but the trouble with glib phrases like that is that people start to thing that consciousness
is self awareness. Hence all the excitement about testing which animals could recognise themselves in the mirror! The two concepts are obviously distinct - do you become unconscious if you are deeply engrossed in a problem and are not concentrating on self - of course you don't.
David