I feel that the this talk conflates computation and conscious experience. Computational models of neural processing can lead to errors in perception. Why we experience this perception is the mystery. I.e. a computer can make the same computational errors, but I doubt such systems feel the perception.
perception itself is an aggregation of mental processes and sensory inputs. shut down all senses and thoughts one by one and perception is also gone. It' very mechanical and consciousness can be created by mapping the brain and sensory inputs to an artificial machine.
Perception is not necessarily conscious and in fact we are aware of what we perceive (or even perceiving per se) only for a few minutes during the day. Conscious vision is just noticed vision, i.e. perception of perception. There is no qualia mystery, just 2nd degree perception. In some cases this (higher mammal) faculty improves neurocognitive coordination (then named reasoning/thinking). Furthermore, noticing what one perceives may be a necessary condition for socially sharing salient perceptions. But otherwise, „subjective experience“ as such -as „qualia“- has absolutely no causal role to play which is why it is unobservable. Behavior is evidently controlled by physical laws like every other movement of matter.
Seth does not overcome the idea that consciousness is, anyhow, something. This always ends up with mere perseveration of historical positions in the mind-brain debate. However, if consciousness were „something“ it would have to be defined by its very nature: being conscious. In consequence, unconsciousness could not exist anymore which is evidently not the case. Our natural consciousness is a possible property of a part of those physical processes in our nervous systems that can best be characterized as information processing aiming at adaptive behavior. If that property exists in a specific moment the system takes particular notice of this part of processed information. Like the quest for beauty (per se) - another case of property but not substance - the quest for consciousness is badly misguided.
Good one, Seth
Guy's name is Anil.
I feel that the this talk conflates computation and conscious experience. Computational models of neural processing can lead to errors in perception. Why we experience this perception is the mystery. I.e. a computer can make the same computational errors, but I doubt such systems feel the perception.
perception itself is an aggregation of mental processes and sensory inputs. shut down all senses and thoughts one by one and perception is also gone. It' very mechanical and consciousness can be created by mapping the brain and sensory inputs to an artificial machine.
Profound
Perception is not necessarily conscious and in fact we are aware of what we perceive (or even perceiving per se) only for a few minutes during the day. Conscious vision is just noticed vision, i.e. perception of perception. There is no qualia mystery, just 2nd degree perception. In some cases this (higher mammal) faculty improves neurocognitive coordination (then named reasoning/thinking). Furthermore, noticing what one perceives may be a necessary condition for socially sharing salient perceptions. But otherwise, „subjective experience“ as such -as „qualia“- has absolutely no causal role to play which is why it is unobservable. Behavior is evidently controlled by physical laws like every other movement of matter.
Seth does not overcome the idea that consciousness is, anyhow, something. This always ends up with mere perseveration of historical positions in the mind-brain debate. However, if consciousness were „something“ it would have to be defined by its very nature: being conscious. In consequence, unconsciousness could not exist anymore which is evidently not the case. Our natural consciousness is a possible property of a part of those physical processes in our nervous systems that can best be characterized as information processing aiming at adaptive behavior. If that property exists in a specific moment the system takes particular notice of this part of processed information. Like the quest for beauty (per se) - another case of property but not substance - the quest for consciousness is badly misguided.
so kantian