4 ms·
I've never found that argument convincing. It seems to suppose that consciousness is an either/or phenomenon. Either you're conscious or you're not. But what
by tgflynn 10y ago
I've never found that argument convincing.
It seems to suppose that consciousness is an either/or phenomenon. Either you're conscious or you're not. But what if consciousness is more of a continuum and the intensity of your conscious experiences can increase or decrease. Further let's suppose that the source of consciousness is somehow distributed throughout the brain. When the first small set of circuits is replaced your conscious experiences became ever so slightly less intense, by such a small amount that you didn't even notice. This continues every time another small brain region is replaced until at the end you no longer have any conscious experiences at all.
- sebastianconcpt 10y agoYeah but that's still considering the epiphenomenon hypothesis and not other possibilities. What if the only thing you can explain with the epiphenomenon idea is the Philosophical Zombie (mind) but you still didn't explained a bit about consciousness. Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
- tgflynn 10y agoMy intent was actually not to take any firm position on the nature of consciousness but rather to present one possible model, that I think many would find plausible, as a counterexample to the progressive replacement argument (ie. the argument that a machine can be conscious because you can gradually turn a human brain into a machine).