The reason I suggest it's the only way is because that deals with one of the problems: if there is system X and an identical copy of system X, then if they don't produce the same experience of consciousness then how could the change be accounted for? So a given system has a given expression otherwise it would be very hard to suggest that the system had anything to do with the expression and you'd be in extreme dualism territory.
A neural network is in the business of representing and transforming information at different levels of abstraction... once you get to a neuron that represents a shape for instance, it is essentially the apex of a large hierarchy of transformations and just becomes the only thing that is required to represent that shape. In other words, direct stimulation of that neuron in surgery would do the same thing in the system as triggering it through the normal channels of layers and layers of hierarchically connected neurons. But basically, each neuron represents something at a certain level of abstraction, and I believe, can be used in the system as such. But in the human brain, the abstractions are not simple hierarchies like a Christmas tree but instead complicated interconnected networks where connections can be and are made in so many different ways... lateral, feedforward, feedback, inhibiting etc and a given neuron can provide input to as many neurons as a prepared to synapse with it; a given neuron plays a part in representing many different things by virtue of the input it provides to different neurons in different places. And the human brain is dynamic and plastic as well... connections change both at the synaptic level (i.e. the 'weights' used in memory) and at the organisational level (both in the process of development and after brain damage). So the system is highly dynamic and highly interconnected.
So my theory was that consciousness was in the business of representing that highly dynamic and interconnected network of information in the only way it could to satisfy all the relational constraints of the system. And that the richer the interconnections, as in the the case of the human brain, the richer the resulting conscious experience because there are more different states to represent and more relationships to preserve.
As an aside, writing this post brought to mind one of my earlier theories about how imagination was accomplished in the brain, and thinking about it I think it would fit in quite well with this theory. Imagination takes what you already know and combines it in novel ways to produce novel ideas. But in functional terms, an imagination is a dynamic relationship between representations that are not normally connected. As for how it's achieved neurally that comes down to speculation, and to do with focus and memory retrieval etc, but is not relevant to what I'm trying to say. The main thing is, the experience of an imagination becomes more mentally vivid the more interconnected it is... that's one thing I noticed from observation. So that would fit in with this theory and show that even temporary changes to the relationships in the system could have effects on consciousness.
A neural network is in the business of representing and transforming information at different levels of abstraction... once you get to a neuron that represents a shape for instance, it is essentially the apex of a large hierarchy of transformations and just becomes the only thing that is required to represent that shape. In other words, direct stimulation of that neuron in surgery would do the same thing in the system as triggering it through the normal channels of layers and layers of hierarchically connected neurons. But basically, each neuron represents something at a certain level of abstraction, and I believe, can be used in the system as such. But in the human brain, the abstractions are not simple hierarchies like a Christmas tree but instead complicated interconnected networks where connections can be and are made in so many different ways... lateral, feedforward, feedback, inhibiting etc and a given neuron can provide input to as many neurons as a prepared to synapse with it; a given neuron plays a part in representing many different things by virtue of the input it provides to different neurons in different places. And the human brain is dynamic and plastic as well... connections change both at the synaptic level (i.e. the 'weights' used in memory) and at the organisational level (both in the process of development and after brain damage). So the system is highly dynamic and highly interconnected.
So my theory was that consciousness was in the business of representing that highly dynamic and interconnected network of information in the only way it could to satisfy all the relational constraints of the system. And that the richer the interconnections, as in the the case of the human brain, the richer the resulting conscious experience because there are more different states to represent and more relationships to preserve.
As an aside, writing this post brought to mind one of my earlier theories about how imagination was accomplished in the brain, and thinking about it I think it would fit in quite well with this theory. Imagination takes what you already know and combines it in novel ways to produce novel ideas. But in functional terms, an imagination is a dynamic relationship between representations that are not normally connected. As for how it's achieved neurally that comes down to speculation, and to do with focus and memory retrieval etc, but is not relevant to what I'm trying to say. The main thing is, the experience of an imagination becomes more mentally vivid the more interconnected it is... that's one thing I noticed from observation. So that would fit in with this theory and show that even temporary changes to the relationships in the system could have effects on consciousness.
