tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post7813271939438921094..comments2023-10-30T04:16:25.917-04:00Comments on Sentient Developments: Protopanpsychism and the consciousness conundrum, or why we shouldn't assume uploads - A SentDev ClassicGeorgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-6581005119825675772009-02-09T09:07:00.000-05:002009-02-09T09:07:00.000-05:00"All bets are off once a conscious superintelligen..."All bets are off once a conscious superintelligence starts to engage in selective decoherence."<BR/><BR/>I think Greg Egan wrote a book <I>Schild's Ladder</I> in which selective decoherence was a key to genuine free will.<BR/><BR/>Definitely worth a read.TJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00095813897930533591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-75608051010550165292009-02-06T23:02:00.000-05:002009-02-06T23:02:00.000-05:00Definitely cybernetic approaches are missing and I...Definitely cybernetic approaches are missing and I would also add Gerald Edelman's theory of consciousness. Yet none of these account for subjective mental states the way we understand subjectivity today. The riddle of consciousness is both conceptual and scientific. Also, it is not clear what is the evolutionary advantage of subjective states and therefore how did they evolve.Spaceweaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897180849660972797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-2801657777007443602009-02-06T05:30:00.000-05:002009-02-06T05:30:00.000-05:00The author should read Maturana's Autopoiesis and ...The author should read Maturana's Autopoiesis and Cognition. The discussion here does not include any mention of the circular, self-creating, self-referential, self-regulating nature of the cybernetic systems that give rise to observers capable of claiming consciousness. I believe this to be a mistake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-63932284338197124872009-02-06T01:38:00.000-05:002009-02-06T01:38:00.000-05:00Hameroff (and Penrose) advanced the rather silly t...Hameroff (and Penrose) advanced the rather silly theory of quantum microtubules. I work on microtubules and can tell you that there is nothing mystical or proto/pan/psychic about them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-87944205876083207182009-02-05T08:10:00.000-05:002009-02-05T08:10:00.000-05:00Wow. So much work has been put into this...I'm wo...Wow. So much work has been put into this...I'm wondering if that in itself is a reason to deny the solution.ArcAnge1Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440932066267184439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-33120070746129616252009-02-04T14:12:00.000-05:002009-02-04T14:12:00.000-05:00Being, as I am, an adherent to Dennett's general a...Being, as I am, an adherent to Dennett's general approach to the problems of consciousness, I think the qualitative difference between contemporary electronic computers and biological minds is more analogous to that between liquid water and ice than it is between pure water and rose water. I suspect the impetus to "add" something to information processing so as to achieve consciousness springs more from a misunderstanding of what consciousness is than from a fundamental inability for "mere" information processing to, when in the correct form, constitute consciousness.<BR/><BR/>As a side note, I don't understand what interesting difference there can be between two dynamically equivalent monisms. That is to say, if the one (insofar as we can tell) behaves exactly the same as the other, what grounds do we have to saying there's a difference between a universe in which all is thought and all is matter?<BR/><BR/>Our desire for essentialism tends to blind us to the *relevant* qualities of things.Natohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05273666908715766390noreply@blogger.com