Consciousness
Apr. 14th, 2005 08:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewducker(started off as a reply to a post of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
coalescent's)
In my (extremely simplified) opinion, consciousness is the reflexive bit of the brain that deals with abstract concepts. It's the deductive bit that sits on top of the main, inductive, areas of the brain, putting together concepts based on the observations those areas make, and feeding back when it makes a logical connection between things that the purely reactive areas can't.
I don't think it's in any way 'in charge' of the rest of the brain, and I think people's inductive areas frequently overrule it, leading to people saying things like "I was out of control." and "I don't know why I did it." and "I knew it was the wrong thing to do, but I couldn't help myself.", but I do think that it exerts pressure.
I don't think consciousness comes from a sufficently complex et of neurons - I think it comes specifically from an arrangement of neurons that can work in abstract, deductive ways (like the human forebrain, and that of various other mammals).
I think the reason that we have such problems with AI is that you need both inductive and deductive thought and computers are _terrible_ at induction - being basically deduction machines. Also, most of the AI researchers are extremely geeky, and therefore focussed on logic, believing that's what intelligence is.
coalescent's)In my (extremely simplified) opinion, consciousness is the reflexive bit of the brain that deals with abstract concepts. It's the deductive bit that sits on top of the main, inductive, areas of the brain, putting together concepts based on the observations those areas make, and feeding back when it makes a logical connection between things that the purely reactive areas can't.
I don't think it's in any way 'in charge' of the rest of the brain, and I think people's inductive areas frequently overrule it, leading to people saying things like "I was out of control." and "I don't know why I did it." and "I knew it was the wrong thing to do, but I couldn't help myself.", but I do think that it exerts pressure.
I don't think consciousness comes from a sufficently complex et of neurons - I think it comes specifically from an arrangement of neurons that can work in abstract, deductive ways (like the human forebrain, and that of various other mammals).
I think the reason that we have such problems with AI is that you need both inductive and deductive thought and computers are _terrible_ at induction - being basically deduction machines. Also, most of the AI researchers are extremely geeky, and therefore focussed on logic, believing that's what intelligence is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 08:12 am (UTC)Having been to more than a few 'induction' lectures in my time, I find that they have the exact opposite effect - sapping my will to either think in a deductive manner, or live beyond the coffee break!
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 09:04 am (UTC)All thought is thought. All thought is, to some degree, action. Is all action thought?
You tell me if it makes any sense :-)
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 04:14 pm (UTC)Of course not.*
*the above is a slightly sarcastic response based on the frighteningly horrific truth that some people still consider words to be more than arbitrary abstract delineations of subjective experience. Ooooh....cold shivers them is...
no subject
Date: 2005-04-14 06:15 pm (UTC)What you said:
All A is A.
Obvious Tautology
All A is, to some degree B.
Fair enough statement
Is all B A?
Well, not that you've shown anywhere in your argument