Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[polymath257]

Functionalism is the correct view, but it may also be true that one can't create human-like consciousness without hardware that mimics some of the functionality of a real neural network.  That isn't because I'm waffling on functionalism - it is because the function may be highly dependent on neural structure.

I am a fan of the work of Gerald Edelman, who believed that biological intelligence self-evolves from the structures of neuronal groups.  If this is true, the nature of our intelligent conscious experience may be difficult to replicate without building a similar self-evolving AI.

Functionalism is quite popular among philosophers. Maybe not THE most popular theory, but close. The problem with functionalism is it tests our intuitions in a way that's unsettling. If information feedback causes consciousness, then it would seem that ANY information feedback system would lead to a conscious entity. Like, are the back of our toilets "slightly conscious"? That's a rudimentary information feedback system.

One of the reasons Chalmers suggested thermostats could be conscious.

I do think there is a hierarchy of different states going from simple reactivity to full self-consciousness.

Some important stages are when there is an internal model of the external state, an internal model of the internal state, and when there is an internal model of the internal states of others.

Also trees. I remember a guy in my metaphysics class who was a die-hard functionalist. He would argue that trees are conscious in a sense because of the adaption to environmental factors... he even took it down to cellular biology with trees. I mean, he made a good case. He was incredibly intelligent and knew his biology better than I did. But I still think his conclusions and his willingness to reduce consciousness so easily were hasty... even if correct.

One issue is time scale. There is certainly a sense in which plants are reactive to their environment, but there does not appear to be a representation of even external states. So it would be a fairly low level on the consciousness hierarchy.

The toilet question and the tree question really make me take a second look at biological naturalism. It isn't haunted by these pesky absurd scenarios. But it, of course, has its own problems. I'm not saying I AM a biological naturalist. Just that I think it's a plausible theory. Functionalism is plausible too. Don't get me wrong. But unanswered questions remain.

And I think a LOT depends on the definitions used. We seem to think there is a single 'consciousness' that doesn't vary from specific example to specific example. I really doubt that is the case. We need definitions to clarify what we are talking about.

---

But, who knows, maybe people with pools shouldn't watch Nicholas Cage movies.

They shouldn't swim in pools during years where Cage has been prolific. They can watch all the Nick Cage they want, really.

-- nice analysis of the graph, btw.

Thanks!