by GrahamH wrote:kennyc wrote:GrahamH wrote:...
Me and Graziano think the machine attributes semantic to things (people, objects, self), and behaves accordingly (moving, sensing, making language etc). No special sauce. No panpsychism, no woo-physics.
No you still don't understand what Graziano is saying. His work and that of Tononi, Koch, and the direction Michio is talking about all fit together as well as fitting the evolutionary framework and its requirements.
And none of it has anything (other than being an artifact) to do with 'subjective experience of shit' which is literally philosophical bullshit.
Bravo Kenny, for basically repeating back to me what I just stated (and ignoring the further bit you don't like).......
Ah yes, the 'further bit' - the bullshit that has no science behind it.
Let me say again, there is no Hard Problem, there are not p-zombies, it's all figments of philosophical bullshit.
Graziano's approach eliminates Chalmers idiotic hard problem. This is what you refuse to accept due to your biased view.
Graziano says:
....Lately, the problem of consciousness has begun to catch on in neuroscience. How does a brain generate consciousness? In the computer age, it is not hard to imagine how a computing machine might construct, store and spit out the information that ‘I am alive, I am a person, I have memories, the wind is cold, the grass is green,’ and so on. But how does a brain become aware of those propositions? The philosopher David Chalmers has claimed that the first question, how a brain computes information about itself and the surrounding world, is the ‘easy’ problem of consciousness. The second question, how a brain becomes aware of all that computed stuff, is the ‘hard’ problem.
I believe that the easy and the hard problems have gotten switched around. The sheer scale and complexity of the brain’s vast computations makes the easy problem monumentally hard to figure out. How the brain attributes the property of awareness to itself is, by contrast, much easier. If nothing else, it would appear to be a more limited set of computations. In my laboratory at Princeton University, we are working on a specific theory of awareness and its basis in the brain. Our theory explains both the apparent awareness that we can attribute to Kevin and the direct, first-person perspective that we have on our own experience....
There ya go both eliminated. No hard problem, no easy problem, just simple awareness and brain processes.
And as I said, combined with Tononi, Koch, evolution, etc. all the puzzle pieces fit so pack yer bags and head home.
is headed in the right direction. That was my point the last few posts - since bringing up Tononi etc (668, 671...) . It seems (to me at least) that much of the 'real' cognitive and neural science is beginning to come together. In conjunction with the various human brain projects in the U.S., Europe, etc. I'm hoping there will be great strides in the next few years.
) consciousness. 
