[ExI] Possible seat of consciousness found

[Dylan Distasio]

There may be overlap in the circuits with RAS (not sure) but it was
directly in the thalamus.  The paper linked by the OP has full details if
you want to go deeper.

On Sat, Feb 15, 2020, 12:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> I still have not heard from anyone (Will?) that all they were doing was
> stimulating the ascending reticular formation.  Long known to activate the
> cortex in a broad manner (and improve learning).
>
> bill w
>
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:41 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>> *I first realized it was important to distinguish between reality and
>>> knowledge of reality in an AI class as an undergraduate.  We were trying to
>>> program a vision system for a robot that could manipulate blocks on a
>>> table. They were instructing us how to build 3D models of the blocks from
>>> 2D camera data.  I was thinking this had to be the wrong way to do things,
>>> since I was naively thinking we didn't need to do all that extra work since
>>> we were just "directly aware of the blocks on the table.'*
>>>
>>
>> So the "extra work" proved not to be extra at all, not if the robot was
>> to behave in the way you wanted it to.
>>
>> *> As Representational Qualia theory defines: "Consiosness as
>>> computationally bound elemental subjective qualities like redness and
>>> greenness."*
>>>
>>
>> I still don't know what "computationally bound" means, but I do know
>> that red and green do not have "elemental subjective qualities" anymore
>> than bigness or smallness does.
>>
>> > *John, this predicts there are two types of seeing.  The kind that is
>>> done by robots, our subconscious, and blind sight, where there is no
>>> conscios computational binding, and the conscious kind where there is
>>> binding.  *
>>>
>>
>> If these two types of seeing end up producing the same behavior then
>> science can never distinguish between them, and Darwinian Evolution could
>> never have created the type that produces not only intelligence but
>> consciousness too; and yet here I am a conscious being. On the other hand
>> if the two types of seeing end up producing different behaviors then any
>> intelligent activity that would convince you that one of your fellow humans
>> was conscious, and not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, should if
>> you're being logical convince you that a robot who behaved in the same
>> intelligent way was just as conscious as the human.
>>
>> And as I keep emphasising, as a practical matter it's not really
>> important if humans think an AI is conscious, but it is important that
>> the AI think humans are conscious. If the AI thinks we're conscious like
>> it is it might feel some empathy toward us, but if it thinks we're just
>> primitive meat machines then the human race is in deep trouble.
>>
>> John K Clark
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200215/7582c3f0/attachment.htm>