(April 5, 2015 at 9:20 am)Rhythm Wrote:(April 5, 2015 at 7:47 am)emjay Wrote: LOL. In that case I hope it's not #1 cos that leaves little room for further intrigue - which is the fun partOh, I don't know..I find the successful, practical application of complicated and robust systems to be pretty damned intriguing. For me, anyway, conceptualizing consciousness as the operation of a system doesn't diminish or increase the intrigue. You are likely conceptualizing consciousness as a system of some sort as well (just a different system than the one I might) - why doesn't it remove the intrigue when you think about your system.....if it removes the intrigue when you think about mine?
In all of this, it goes without saying that neither of our hopes are a reliable indicator of reality.
Quote:Still not sure I understand your next point about the visible part of the system. I'm sorry, this must be frustrating for youThat when you ask "if its something like 1" the question..."why consciousness" becomes redundant....."consciousness exists because -it's- something like 1". If you make the assumption, the question becomes meaningless in that context - ask and answered all at once. That question "why consciousness" may be a problem for some other explanation, it isn't a problem for this one. It's a good question, of course....just not one that fits into a scenario where that "if" is true.
Quote:I suppose what I'm suggesting is that if consciousness is just the visible part of the system (as per #1) then any inputs are routed to the underlying hardware and processed there and their outputs presented in consciousness, but that these outputs would be the same whether the processing was done by the hardware or somehow in consciousness. But I'm not sure where unplugging the keyboard has come into itThe keyboard came in only to correct the analogy of consciousness to a computer. As we continue.....you seem to be talking about location - regardless of inputs or outputs. I don;t know that they'd be the same - unless the system of meaty bits and the system of consciousness bits were the same. I don't expect a shovel to produce the same kind of drizzle of syrup on a cake as I expect from a spoon. Different systems, different results.
OTOH, maybe they are similar systems, or maybe they produce a similar effect by dissimilar means. I can only refer to what systems I see and how they accomplish things which we, when we do them, call consciousness or experience. Maybe there is a "system of consciousness" separate from the brain, that'd be one hell of a way to waste a brain that we cashed all our chips in to develop. Stranger than we can suppose...sometimes.
What I meant by no more intrigue wasn't a dig at your theory or mine. I just meant that if it was #1 there was nowhere else to go with it if it was asked and answered in the same question. Another misunderstanding I think.
But what you say next is still very true: neither of our hopes is a reliable measure of reality. That's what I like about Atheism - IMO we are all equals.
So what exactly is your theory?
