(February 20, 2021 at 11:30 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Seems appropriate―it falsifies your claim that consciousness requires life. That is not something we know and IIT rejects it:
"A corollary of IIT that violates common intuitions is that even circuits as simple as a ‘photodiode’ made up of a sensor and a memory element can have a modicum of experience" (Tononi, 2015, p. 11).
Reference: Tononi, G., Koch C. (2015). Consciousness: here, there and everywhere? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
That's a pretty flimsy claim of consciousness. As far as I'm concerned it falsifies nothing I've said.
And if we're going to cherry pick, this is from Tononi's abstract: "IIT explains a range of clinical and laboratory findings, makes testable predictions, and extrapolates to unusual conditions. The theory vindicates some panpsychist intuitions - consciousness is an intrinsic, fundamental property, is graded, is common among biological organisms, and even some very simple systems have some. However, unlike panpsychism, IIT implies that not everything is conscious, for example group of individuals or feed forward networks. In sharp contrast with widespread functionalist beliefs, IIT implies that digital computers, even if their behavior were to be functionally equivalent to ours, and even if they were to run faithful simulations of the human brain, would experience next to nothing."
My take, imitation of consciousness is not consciousness. So much for photodiodes.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem.