Well that’s not my interpretation. Consciousness arises from understanding. True understanding. Not stimulus in- behavior out.
Consciousness is not a simple exchange or matching task. Which is what the Chinese room illustrates.
There is more to it.
The Chinese room is modern LLMs.
Human brains are altered by every stimulus. Physically they are constantly changing at the neuron level.
The way inhibitory neurons work … It does not work in a way that (at present) can be predicted very accurately beyond a single or small number of neurons.
As I like to say. Every moment the brain is updated biologically. Biological changes. Connections weakened, strengthened, created, destroyed.
This happens constantly.
You can’t use statistics to predict these kind of events.
Although the neuro definition of “consciousness” is debated. It is generally considered “awareness”.
It’s something that is a product of many processes in the brain.
And we haven’t even touched on brain occillations and how they impact cognitive functions. Brain occillations are heavily tied to consciousness/awareness. They synch up processes and regulate frequency of neuron firing.
They gatekeep stimuli effects as well.
The brain is so unbelievably complicated. Research on ERPs are the best we have for predicting some specific brain spikes of cognitive activities.
You may find the research on it to be less than where you think it is.
Neuroscience knowledge is far below what most people think it is at (I blame click bait articles).
However it’s still an interesting area so here is the wiki.
The thing is that we do not really know what consciousness is or how it arises. So I think we need to be careful when we decide how it does not arise, or what “true” consciousness is.
I think it is likely that consciousness emerges on the aggregate macro-level from processes that are simple on the micro-level. Such phenomena do lend themselves to be described or indeed understood best with statistics.
In particular, I think it’s a mistake to assume that consciousness can only arise by mimicking the exact functioning of a human brain. (Noting here that there is debate on whether other animals can be considered conscious with no clear cutoff or criteria). However I think that the criteria that you mentioned (continuous rewiring of neurons, oscillations of activity et.c.) could easily be added to an ML model, and I think those exact things will be added to ML models down the line.
Well that’s not my interpretation. Consciousness arises from understanding. True understanding. Not stimulus in- behavior out.
Consciousness is not a simple exchange or matching task. Which is what the Chinese room illustrates.
There is more to it.
The Chinese room is modern LLMs.
Human brains are altered by every stimulus. Physically they are constantly changing at the neuron level.
The way inhibitory neurons work … It does not work in a way that (at present) can be predicted very accurately beyond a single or small number of neurons.
As I like to say. Every moment the brain is updated biologically. Biological changes. Connections weakened, strengthened, created, destroyed.
This happens constantly.
You can’t use statistics to predict these kind of events.
Although the neuro definition of “consciousness” is debated. It is generally considered “awareness”.
It’s something that is a product of many processes in the brain.
And we haven’t even touched on brain occillations and how they impact cognitive functions. Brain occillations are heavily tied to consciousness/awareness. They synch up processes and regulate frequency of neuron firing.
They gatekeep stimuli effects as well.
The brain is so unbelievably complicated. Research on ERPs are the best we have for predicting some specific brain spikes of cognitive activities.
You may find the research on it to be less than where you think it is.
Neuroscience knowledge is far below what most people think it is at (I blame click bait articles).
However it’s still an interesting area so here is the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-related_potential
The thing is that we do not really know what consciousness is or how it arises. So I think we need to be careful when we decide how it does not arise, or what “true” consciousness is.
I think it is likely that consciousness emerges on the aggregate macro-level from processes that are simple on the micro-level. Such phenomena do lend themselves to be described or indeed understood best with statistics.
In particular, I think it’s a mistake to assume that consciousness can only arise by mimicking the exact functioning of a human brain. (Noting here that there is debate on whether other animals can be considered conscious with no clear cutoff or criteria). However I think that the criteria that you mentioned (continuous rewiring of neurons, oscillations of activity et.c.) could easily be added to an ML model, and I think those exact things will be added to ML models down the line.