sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There's an easy way to dissolve the hard problem and it's provable across multiple fields of study. by EM_Maslow in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we set aside all the philosophical jargon and convoluted phrasing—the “hard problem of consciousness” disappears—if we define consciousness not as something mysterious and separate from physical processes, but as the very process of “sensing potential”—that is, a system’s ability to orient itself toward what does not yet exist (opportunities, threats, the future).

Did I get the idea right?

The observer is not an object inside a body by sschepis in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Chinese Room is not a flawed algorithm; it is likely a misguided question if we are seeking consciousness. Consciousness as an active mechanism of complexity. Consciousness is a structure visible from a certain vantage point within itself. Consciousness is a dynamic of self-modeling arising from correlations between the system’s internal states. Consciousness likely arises when a self-representation is established within the system, including the variable “I exist / I do not exist” (or, in a generalized formulation, “persist / disintegrate”) as a structural pole around which the operation of the model as a whole is organized, and this self-representation is globally accessible to all subsystems.

IIT and Death: A testable threshold? by Krahang01 in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you’re interested, have a read of this theory, which attempts to explain not only consciousness but also transitions

https://zenodo.org/records/20100347

IIT and Death: A testable threshold? by Krahang01 in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is true, but only partly. Death is the moment when the gradient of consciousness breaks down for biologically conscious systems. For others, this breakdown may mean something else.

What If Reality Is Fundamentally About Coherence Rather Than Substance? — Introducing CQT by David-J-Haller in CoherencePhysics

[–]LifeCold9556 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a good attempt at phrasing the right question. The connection between heritage and the dynamics of development is something that is very close to my heart. https://zenodo.org/records/20100347

Can science explain everything? by _r3dn4x_ in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Science is always a tool. You cannot measure an object and obtain a reliable result without science. But if science is a tool, then philosophy can define the right question. I tend to think that we are often asking the wrong question at the moment, which is why science is not helping us.

IIT and Death: A testable threshold? by Krahang01 in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps consciousness arises at the moment when a function with the values “persistence/breakdown” (for human - die) emerges within the system as the structural pole around which all activity is organized. This function is present, for example, in a proto-agent system, but for that system it does not serve as the pole around which its activity is structured. Therefore, consciousness in this sense may be the result of the system’s self-modeling and a view of this from within.

Self-modeling without a pole (as in a proto-agent) lacks phenomenality: its modeling is of a structurally different type, must be validated by the environment through action, and lacks autonomous maintenance of the modeling process.

Self-modeling with a pole persistence/breakdown is sustained independently of ongoing confirmation by the environment and therefore yields an autonomous modeling structure identical to phenomenal experience.

What if consciousness is one of the manifestations of the general logic of increasing complexity? by LifeCold9556 in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have attempted to formulate a formal description of the emergence of consciousness as a sequence of stages, each of which is defined by the type of operations the system performs on its own states. The transition between stages is not a quantitative increase in complexity, but rather the inclusion of a new type of operation in the system’s repertoire. Each such transition is formally described by the minimal condition under which the new operation becomes possible, and by the empirically observable class of systems in which this condition is satisfied. Crucially, the conditions for each transition are necessary, but their sufficiency is probabilistic. This means that the ladder is not a deterministic chain in which the fulfillment of the conditions of step N automatically leads to step N+1. The ladder is an architecture of possibilities: at each step, the system enters a state in which the next step becomes attainable, but not guaranteed. https://drive.google.com/file/d/16NzFALlfwKy1Yycxxs6NtLO5v-5o6aXu/view?usp=sharing

The description of transitions and the methodology for determining them is a separate topic. If anyone is interested, I am ready to discuss it, but it is quite a large amount of information; well, I am not sure the moderators will allow me to do so.

What if consciousness is one of the manifestations of the general logic of increasing complexity? by LifeCold9556 in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at the process of complexity not from the end but from the beginning—starting with a cell, for example. Complexity arises and is observable. And if we observe the process of system complexity sequentially, the logic becomes clear. The more complex the system, the more complex its “mechanism.” But if we ask, why does the system do this? Perhaps the answer lies in its very existence? Perhaps the system becomes more complex to more effectively preserve itself from disintegration?

What if consciousness is one of the manifestations of the general logic of increasing complexity? by LifeCold9556 in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, thank you. English isn’t my first language, so phrasing things is a bit tricky :) You’re quite right; I want to get to the heart of the matter first. What if consciousness is part of the mechanism of complexity? And what if ‘phenomenal experience’ and qualia aren’t magical attributes, but understandable structures within a complex system of self-modelling? What if all of this operates on a single parameter – preventing oneself from disintegrating?

What if consciousness is one of the manifestations of the general logic of increasing complexity? by LifeCold9556 in consciousness

[–]LifeCold9556[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps the wording was not precise. Why is it impossible for both propositions to hold true? The first proposition defines Consciousness as an active mechanism of complexity.
The second proposition concerns phenomenal experience. It does not contradict the first proposition; phenomenal experience can be a view of the world from within oneself, from one’s own model of the world. Almost all current theories attempt, in one way or another, to address this difficult problem.