A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

Clearly one can build a hugely complex system that performs some special-purpose function and isn't anywhere near "conscious". Consider a big supercomputer doing finite-element analysis. Or a big network of packet routers.

Koch would probably argue that those aren't "sufficiently complex"? So what's the definition of "sufficiently complex"? Something that is "conscious"? This is not helpful.

Perhaps we should focus on "common sense", rather than "consciousness". Common sense can usefully be defined as the ability to predict (at least the near-term) consequences of actions. Given that, planning and evaluation of alternatives is possible. Most animals above the insect level have some capability in that area. They're not purely reactive. We really need to get this figured out so we can build robots that can handle new situations without screwing up too badly.

Neuroscience has work to do at the bottom. Check out "http://www.openworm.org/", where some people are trying to simulate the simplest nematode known at the neuron level. Until that works, neuroscience doesn't really have neurons figured out.

Classic quote: "Philosophy is the kicking up of a lot of dust and then complaining about what you can't see".

"Perhaps the most unsettling implication of this train of thought is that anything can be interpreted as possessing any abstract property, including consciousness and intelligence."

[1] http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.artic...

But perhaps it is conscious, just at a level that's inaccessible to my brain, which is a nearly distinct structure with very minimal relative communication to the liver.

I also found it interesting that he denied the idea that America might be one larger consciousness. I've had multiple experiences on LSD which have suggested to me that as an aggregate humans are one larger organism with a single collective consciousness, that operates both at a slower speed and a higher overall awareness. (Most accessible in the 150-200ug range)

When you think about how individual neurons work, spraying neurotransmitters at each other to trigger responses from the next neuron, essentially passing information in a complex yet highly organized web, are humans that much different. The set of humans who design cities are different from the set of humans who manage government policies are different from the set of humans that try to go to space. Each human passes information to others in highly complex ways that form super organized macrostructures. It doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch then to say that consciousness also arises from the interactions of the macrostructures in the same way consciousness arises from the interactions of all the parts of our brain.

And the internet would seem to be a massive facilitator of this. Because of the internet, the amount of communication I do per day is enormous, and my interactions happen at a global (though mostly English speaking) scale. I doubt communications of this scope and magnitude were available to humans even 20 years ago.

> It's really astonishing to me that he words it this way, because independently I have thought almost exactly the same thing for a long time.

This is just the famous "cogito ergo sum" of Descartes, dating back to the 17th century. A significant piece of epistemology is devoted to criticizing this reasoning:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4

consciousness arises when systems in the brain model the external world, and then begin modeling their modelling of the external world, and then begin modelling their modelling of their modelling...