At some evolutionary stage, an organism lacking nutrition began to feel hungry and an organism that
was hot began to
feel hot. Inchoate discomfort affected action. A hungry organism was more likely to ingest. A dangerously and uncomfortably hot organism was more likely to withdraw from the source of heat. Hunger and hotness are bodily sensations. Hunger is internal. Hotness is on the surface. Brains also organize visual and auditory sensations into perceptions of discrete objects. Organisms with central nervous systems become conscious at every point of their interaction with an environment and their experience is affected by their own internal processes.
I think that the most fundamental qualitative differences are those between existence and nonexistence and between consciousness and unconsciousness. The two most important turning points were the beginning of the universe and being becoming conscious. However, there are also qualitative differences within consciousness: sensation; perception; conceptualization; abstraction; reflection; contemplation. Even if an artificial neural network becomes conscious, will it be able to duplicate every aspect of organic self-consciousness? See the combox here.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
My answer to the question in your last paragraph here is, IMO, that it's very likely to be NO.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: no, heat is not on the surface. The -sensation- is -perceived- to be on the surface, just as hunger is often -perceived- to be in the stomach.
But the actual sensation is an event in the brain.
I prefer to say that sensation is caused by an event in the brain. Locating a brain event is an easier matter than locating a sensation.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I've heard of people, I forget the scientific name for it, who can't FEEL any pain. Which means they could be roasted alive without feeling that kind of agonizing heat. (Shudders!)
And being able to sense pain is often useful. Either we avoid what causes pain or seek medical help for it.
Ad astra! Sean
Congenital analgesia.
Paul: well, if you remove the brain, the consciousness goes too.
This isn't the case if you remove parts of the body; and the parts you can remove without eradicating consciousness have increased continuously as our medical technology improves.
My deduction from this is that:
a) the brain is the seat of consciousness, and;
b) your consciousness would continue if every -other- part of the body were replaced by technological equivalents.
Brain in a bottle, in other words.
It's more speculative to say that your consciousness could be 'uploaded' to an artificial neural net, though plausible.
But b) seems to be inescapable, as far as I can see.
Yes. The brain certainly causes consciousness but a brain state is not simply identical or interchangeable with a mental state. But then cause and effect should be different.
Solidity is identical with molecular cohesion but consciousness is not simply identical with neuronic interactions.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Congenital analgesia. Something to look up, thanks!
Mr. Stirling: Ugh, "brain in a bottle." Who would want to "live" like that? Unless there were means of providing stimuli, such a brain would be blind, deaf, totally lacking in tactile sensation, etc.
One of ERB's Barsoom stories shows us what looks like heads transplanted to bodies. And Heinlein wrote a novel with a fascinating premise: transplanting a brain from one body to another. Alas, I WILL FEAR NO EVIL was ruined by endless dreary monologues about his sexual obsessions.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment