[ExI] My theory of consciousness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 9:07 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Computational functionalism treats cognition as implemented information
>>> processing,
>>>
>>
>> *Yes.*
>>
>> *> but leaves open why experience exists,*
>>>
>>
>> *Yes.*
>>
>> > *and how it affects behavior.*
>>>
>>
>> *No.*
>>
>
> *> No that CTM leaves it open, or No that consciousness doesn't affect
> behavior?*
>

*Computational functionalism can explain behavior while ignoring
consciousness entirely. If that was not true then Darwinian Evolution would
never have been able to produce a conscious being, and yet I know for a
fact that it managed to do so at least once, and probably many billions of
times. **Computational functionalism is certainly not claiming that
consciousness doesn't exist, it's just saying it's not needed to explain
behavior. *

* >>> Consciousness is the inside of a difference that guides a process
>>> from within. *
>>
>>
>> *>> Consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed
>> intelligently.  *
>>
>
> *> The way a process feels when it is informed by information.*
>

*That is circular. You are trying to explain consciousness but by using the
word "informed" you are already assuming the existence of a conscious
entity. **By contrast I am saying it's a brute fact that consciousness is
the way that data feels when it is being processed intelligently, and that
is NOT circular.  *

*>>> We provide an empirical research program with explicit falsification
>>> criteria. *
>>
>>
>> *>> Tell me more about that! *
>>
>
> *> See section 11.4 of the paper linked from the zenodo URL for details on
> a series of empirical tests that could falsify the theory.*
>

*I am unable to access **that part, perhaps I could if I kept on trying but
I don't think it would be worth the effort because **whatever you are
suggesting I am quite certain it must be incorrect. Post the relevant parts
here and prove me wrong. If it's really as good as you claim then you will
have made the largest philosophical advance in a 1000 years, if not 10,000
years. *

*John K Clark   *


>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260921/b81a129b/attachment-0001.htm>