> Certainly we lack (to the best of my knowledge) a rigorous model or definition for terms such as "conscious" and "qualia". That doesn't tell us anything ab

> Certainly we lack (to the best of my knowledge) a rigorous model or definition for terms such as "conscious" and "qualia". That doesn't tell us anything about whether introspection or consciousness is necessary or not, just that our understanding is lacking. Yes. In (theoretical) Computer Science, one of the first things students learn are the limits of their domain and the limits of mathematics and models in general. Keywords: Halting problem In other domains (e.g. biology, psychology etc.) they don't bother with such meta physics :) They use very primitive models (e.g. game theory) to map very complex processes. They forget the proverb that all models are wrong, but some are useful. And if that complexity gap is to big, the models just model randomness. Long story short: I doubt it is possible to build a formal model to describe qualia or introspection. > The fact that humans seem to have it doesn't say anything > about it's necessity (or lack thereof). > It only speaks to it's presence in our particular case. > I would challenge your assertion that "qualia is not simply a state". > In the absence of a rigorous model how are you backing such a claim? As I said, there is no "connection", no "dependency" to evolutionary processes. It is decoupled of what we call evolution. I would rather think it is a property of matter or physics, than one of biology or even cognition. On the other hand, take the usual examples. A color can be described as a certain wavelength. You can model that. You can build a machine, that detects / "percepts" colors and have an inner state of that "color". What is needed in addidition, to create, what we (as humans) perveive as colors? Is it a matter of complexity? Like, if a lot of processes interact and supervise each other, then there are 3rd level effects, like with magnetism and electricity. And one of this is a new emerging "force": consciousness. > Similarly, how are you justifying your assertion that > human behavior could be simulated without introspection > or consciousness? Maybe not in that complexity, but it's possible to simulate agents artificially in an artificial world. To simulate reality, you need a "super" reality and more energy than is existing. Modelling is costly. You have to sacrify through "abstraction". Maybe consciousness is just possible at this level of immediacy when everything interacts with everything in real time. > For that matter, how could anyone justify a claim > to the contrary? If it could model or emulate a certain mental state at any time of a given person and communicate that state. So that the person could verify it. Like a weather forecast. It would be a sign in the direction. But of cause a real "proof" is not possible.