9 ms·
> The hope for resolving this, I think, is that once we understand all processes in the brain, there will be some process that clearly is the self-referential "
by zetalyrae 5mo ago
> The hope for resolving this, I think, is that once we understand all processes in the brain, there will be some process that clearly is the self-referential "person" that is produced by the brain in normal operation.
Yes. I think it's possible with sufficient understanding, the hard problem will dissolve.
But, the question we can ask today is: what kind of explanation would explain away the hard problem of consciousness? What is the signature the model must satisfy? I don't think there's a good answer to that.
- robwwilliams 5mo agoIt would have to explain how we construct “Now” from atemporal cells that are without a clock.
- XorNot 5mo agoWhy? You can build a clock with any basic oscillator and we're chock full of them.
- simiones 5mo agoThis problem, while interesting in its own right, is entirely irrelevant to consciousness. Especially because, regardless of how it's achieved, it's actually very clearly known that we do have temporal processes in our body - our tell-tale hearts being quite an iconic example.
- don_esteban 5mo ago> But, the question we can ask today is: what kind of explanation would explain away the hard problem of consciousness? What is the signature the model must satisfy? I don't think there's a good answer to that. I think that is a question more about the people to whom you are explaining the solution to the hard problem of consciousness. The natural tendency (as with 'what is AI?') is to say 'ah, but that is the easy part, the hard part is <some other thing that they feel you have not explained properly>'.