>>2183645>There is some subjective way the world seems or appears from our experiential point of view from the first person. Computers are objective, they are 3rd person, there is no unified 1st person experiencer to the data they just shift around through algorithms.Which is easy to say when you see a computer, our computers, as nothing more than a box with some circuits in them. For the sake of argument consider that you yourself are a computer. A very complex biological one with an immense capacity for processing assorted data, but a machine nevertheless. Does this somehow change what consciousness is? Even among ourselves, there are multiple 'computers' and no unified 1st person experience. Is a mind simply a computer sufficiently complex to consider its own existence? Most human behavior is, after all, very predictable. It is a comfort to consider ourselves as masters of our own environment/destiny/fate/whatever, but we are indeed very predictable.
>>2183644>A "thought" in a computer can be mapped out materially.I know this is quoted intentionally, but it needs to be said that this is possible because our computers do not think.
>However, if you picture a red car in your mind and we were to dissect your brain, as far as current knowledge in neurology, we could not find the electrical and chemical synapses that would give rise to that specific picture of a red car in your mind.Suppose a day comes that our technology becomes sufficient that we can map out our thought of a red car materially. Does this change what constitutes a thought, consciousness, a mind and/or a computer?
