3 ms·

So, I agree with you completely that consciousness is a function of a living brain, where "living brain" is the physical substrate. I don't know if it follows t

So, I agree with you completely that consciousness is a function of a living brain, where "living brain" is the physical substrate. I don't know if it follows that consciousness has to be probabilistic. The reason that I brought up Chalmers is that he, and others, will say that physical states don't map to subjective consciousness or qualia. Don't get me wrong, I'm much more of a "physicalist" in this regard. I'm not trained and I don't work in the field, but I can't help but think that humans overestimate the complexity and capabilities of consciousness. I think that there is a brain and, like you say, there is some function of it that results in consciousness. I think that we end up with a problem of definitions because the thing that Chalmers et al are describing, I think, doesn't exist. BUT if we are talking about the thing that Chalmers an co are talking about, then no...I don't see a way that you get to qualia and consciousness from protein. I'm kind of rambling. Sorry, it this isn't very coherent.

Koshkin 10y ago
The problem is (not) realizing that our consciousness is as much a function of our brain as it is generated by our interaction with other human beings. I agree with your point about the overestimating. Indeed, social behavior by necessity is rather simple, and, therefore, so is our consciousness. Complicated systems are unreliable, which is why we try to keep things simple - things that we can personally control anyway. And so when things, in their natural progression, get complicated - which they inevitably do, - we give up and submit ourselves to an even simpler, purely social, form of consciousness (by asking for advice, participating in all kinds of social gatherings, etc.), where "qualia" all but disappear. From this perspective it is indeed unrealistic to try to explain human consciousness only as a function of the brain of a particular isolated person.

Koshkin 10y ago

The problem is (not) realizing that our consciousness is as much a function of our brain as it is generated by our interaction with other human beings. I agree with your point about the overestimating. Indeed, social behavior by necessity is rather simple, and, therefore, so is our consciousness. Complicated systems are unreliable, which is why we try to keep things simple - things that we can personally control anyway. And so when things, in their natural progression, get complicated - which they inevitably do, - we give up and submit ourselves to an even simpler, purely social, form of consciousness (by asking for advice, participating in all kinds of social gatherings, etc.), where "qualia" all but disappear. From this perspective it is indeed unrealistic to try to explain human consciousness only as a function of the brain of a particular isolated person.