Hello steemians, I am going to present a series of posts that will talk about philosophy of the mind. Defining the mind is something that is still under constant debate, so I hope I can share the knowledge of past philosophers and provide a better understanding.
Imagine if you will, that everyone in China agreed on an experiment to simulate a brain, each person would play the part of neurons and would communicate with other "neurons" via radios. Everybody plays their part perfectly, and the simulation is exactly how a real brain would opperate.
The data is even hooked up to a body via the radios with all of its senses and brain function still done by the people acting as neurons.
Now, is this being conscious? Does it have a mind?
Well, the proposer of the idea Ned Block thinks not. In fact he used it as an absurd example against funtionalism, the belief that any object can have a mind or be part of one as long as it functions like a mind.
While researching I found a great paper by a student of philosophy who thinks that if Blocks is right, then we must also do away with materialism. The view that the mind is nothing more then interactions of matter.
He proposes an idea he labled as the Scattered Brain where the Chinese nation gradually begin to cease operating as neurons and are instead replaced with actual neurons.
Suspended in nutrient baths and hooked up to the original radios in a way so that the electrical signals they send and receive will all be converted and transferred as they should. The only real difference between this mind and yours is that the neurons are spread all throughout china.
So if the China brain isn't conscious, why is the Scattered Brain concious, and if it isnt, why are you concious?
nice this post
This post was resteemed by @resteembot!
Good Luck!
Learn more about the @resteembot project in the introduction post.
Very interesting. It basically asks the question "what is consciousness" or "what does it mean to be conscious." I do not know if we really have an answer to that question yet
Unfortunately we dont, its an issue that may never be solved, or atleast not until we come across a radically different entity that we can debate with. Though with the creation of AI we will need an answer soon.
Will an AI have to demand we recognise its rights as a concious entity? Would we listen or just wright it off as meaningless words put together by a complex program? And would it be morally acceptable to assume it isnt concious?
I decided not to do a post on the chinese room since its more well known, but I would recomend looking into it if you havent.
Those are some good questions. Sometimes I even wonder if AI or non-organic life, might even be a sort of evolutionary destiny. Some quantum physicists believe that all matter, at its most fundamental and deepest level, is actually just consciousness. As in, if we go beyond the atom and beyond the subatomic particle,everything exists as a form of consciousness. If that is the case, maybe, consciousness just sort of jumps into whatever body or life form that it currently exists within a given point in time. Kind of weird, but interesting to ponder.
I have not looked into "the chinese room" but it sounds interesting. I'll try to check it out