Re:Can computers become conscious?: My reply to Roger Penrose
by joe_the_user on Thursday June 02, 2016 @05:04PM
(#11826042)
I personally feel fairly clear on that though I may be wrong.
That's the thing. Many people feel clear about their particular explanation of consciousness. These explanations build on some simple intuitions, may resonate as true to others. But often don't agree with the other explanations other people make (or are fairly trivial).
It's fine for vague social consensus but very far from an engineering spec. Yet this consciousness thing seen as being shared between people like Penrose or new agers who give pure vitalist/fluffy-cloud explanations and those who attempt to logically coherent explanation.
It is I think awareness in the central part of the brain that [bring] in data from other parts and can think about it.
- Data that reflects data? Of course computers have that.
That's the thing. Many people feel clear about their particular explanation of consciousness. These explanations build on some simple intuitions, may resonate as true to others. But often don't agree with the other explanations other people make (or are fairly trivial).
It's fine for vague social consensus but very far from an engineering spec. Yet this consciousness thing seen as being shared between people like Penrose or new agers who give pure vitalist/fluffy-cloud explanations and those who attempt to logically coherent explanation.
It is I think awareness in the central part of the brain that [bring] in data from other parts and can think about it.
- Data that reflects data? Of course computers have that.