[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by David

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.

Why couldn't a computer brain simulation have a "little man"?

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.

But if the Leggo parts were made out of metal, then you could build a working radio.

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.

If you're not concentrating on self, then you aren't going to notice the thoughts your brain is having about the problem. I suppose you're using "self awareness" to mean simply thinking about yourself. Yes, that is different from consciousness in the sense that it is a subset of it.

But that leaves us with my original question: How does moving consciousness out of the brain solve the "little man" problem?

~~ Paul