"Old questions, but good ones. Rocks are not proud, stars are not nervous. Look further than my bird and you see a universe of rocks and gas, ice and vacuum. A multiverse, perhaps, of bewildering possibility. From the spatially average vantage point in our little cosmos you would barely, with human eyes alone, be able to see anything at all; perhaps only the grey smudge of a distant galaxy in a void of black ink. Most of what is is hardly there, let alone proud, strutting, cock-of-the-chimney-top on an unseasonably cold Cornish evening."
OK, if anyone gives a shit, I've copied an pasted some thoughts on the matter from my old blog posts into the hubski posts that used to link to them. They can be read here: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. Warning, it's about 5k words total--the reason I didn't want to just start spouting off in the comments here.
Consciousness isn't separable from man. That's the philosophical point that most people studying the functional nature of the brain don't understand. A brain is no more conscious than a lump of matter. I wrote a blog on this topic once upon a time, but unfortunately, it was time consuming and no one really read it, so it has been removed. Suffice it to say I think the Blue Brain project is a billion dollar joke.
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but saying That's the philosophical point that most people studying the functional nature of the brain don't understand.
seems like it may be an over-generalization and misrepresentation. I'm saying this purely from anecdotal evidence, but it seems to me that people studying the functional nature of the brain are likely - in most cases - extremely bright people with rigorous academic backgrounds. It seems unlikely that they'd simply 'not understand' something so relevant to their study. Am I incorrect in thinking this?
The mystery of life is unsolvable from a human perspective, as we are part of the mystery. Humanity is a theoretical problem trying to solve itself by experimental means.
Yes, but it may prove something equally, or even more important; that self aware consciousness can even be created by human means and not be some source of energy we have yet to discover. Then again, If Markram builds a functioning human brain down to the molecular level that is capable of independent thought, the accomplishment, though spectacular will only prove that we are capable of simulating the human brain. And, if our organic brains operate exactly as Markram's digital counterpart, the line between simulation and real consciousness will be blurred. This conclusion, if reached will not contradict the idea that even though we have evolved into the position of intellectual beings, with self aware consciousness, who is to say that we are nothing more than complex operations, capable of simulating character traits and emotions like sadness, happiness and the narcissism that has led us to believe we are something more than the sum of our parts, and that being consciously self aware is special and somehow connects us to the reason of our existence.Yes, but. Even if Markram’s Blue Brain manages to produce fleeting moments of ratty consciousness (which I accept it might), we still wouldn’t know how consciousness works.