3 ms·
>> That theory has the big advantage of being neither anthropo- nor neurocentric. It can be related to any physical system (biological or otherwise). This adva
by saint-loup 14y ago
>> That theory has the big advantage of being neither anthropo- nor neurocentric. It can be related to any physical system (biological or otherwise).
This advantage has a downside: the definition is so broad that any large, integrated system can be described as conscious. Of course, you can argue about what counts as "integration" and whether, say, Los Angeles is really a well-integrated system.
Reference: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.fr/2012/06/why-tononi-should-rethink-his-rejection.html http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.fr/2012/06/why-tononi-shoul...
- pygy_ 14y agoYes, it would mean that consciousness is pervasive in the whole universe, and, that, for example, your cells are probably conscious. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis. The point is that the nature of the experience is isomorphic to the integration process, which is very different from system to system. That's why IMO, for example, anthropomorphism in AI is a dead end, and the turing test is irrelevant.