The basic essence of consciousness is Entanglement. It relies on quantum effects Which its experimentally proven. A full understanding of consciousness that applies not only to humans, or animals, But also to plants. This concept concludes any consideration of the algorithmization of consciousness.

I guess a computer algorithm can mimic consciousness. As Consciousness is subjective!

I think an algorithm would have to run on wetware (i.e. hardware with biological or organic components) rather than mere electronic hardware to produce consciousness. Future-generation biochips might eventually help provide an appropriate causal substrate for producing consciousness. I also like this sci-fi scenario: the mold growing inside a gynoid sexbot because it hasn't been cleaned properly combines with and alters the circuitry, thereby creating a causal substrate for sentience.

Karl Pfeifer So you're saying that mathematics alone isn't enough...

Dear Panagioti ('Αγαπητὲ Παναγιώτη),

The term "consciousness" denotes first of all the actual inner awareness of experience (as contrasted with the externality of events are the subject of biological enquiry);

secondly, it denotes a subject-object dichotomy (i.e. a subject intentionally directs itself to objects which it perceives, imagines or thinks),

thirdly, it denotes the knowledge of a conscious self (self-awareness).

Correspondingly unconscious means firstly something that is not an inner existence and does not occur as an experience;

secondly, something that is not thought of as an object and has gone unregarded (it may have been perceived and therefore can be recalled later);

thirdly, it is something which has not reached any knowledge of itself.

The whole of psychic life at any given moment is called consciousness and contains the above three aspects.

After all the above do you still believe that an algorithm no matter how genious can even imitate consciousness?

truly yours

Φιλικά,

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος...

Dear Thanos Didaskalou ,

Thank you for your thoughtful message. I appreciate your perspective, but I still believe that, in time, algorithms may approach aspects of consciousness, even if imperfectly.

Φιλικά, Panos

Γιὰ τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴ Ἰωάννη καὶ τὸν Λακάν ναὶ. Γιὰ τὸν Γκαῖτε ὅμως ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ἡ πρᾶξις.

Still, in part is a matter of definition. and secondly is an ambition of conquering the universe.

Additionally I hope you'll find the next article quite interesting.

Φιλικά,

Thanos Didaskalou

Thanos Didaskalou

In your article you say: "If it [mathematical rigor] confuses or demands additional resource without providing material benefit, it is not earning its keep."

Maybe so, but given the complexity of mathematical enterprise, (i) there has to be division of labor between pure and applied; individuals or even teams can't be all things to all people; (ii) possible practical applications are often not apparent until a long time after theoretical developments that were achieved by doing math for math's sake.

Dear Karl,

true enough that : "there has to be division of labor between pure and applied;", but the original question was a sort of an artificial consciousness, which expresses itself as a whole, in the first place.

I agree with Harvey Dearden's article on the basis of pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitas.