[CloudRecondite]

Your answers all suggest you think consciousness is computational. If we could simulate the complex computations of the brain there’s nothing else there. I’m of the opinion that consciousness is not computational but a fundamental property of the universe that we can’t explain with current physics. I believe this because I can’t adequately explain what I experience otherwise.

[gjm11]

As it happens I do think consciousness is computational, but that isn't the point my thought experiment is trying to make.

Rather, I was saying: if it turned out that consciousness is computational, or more precisely implemented by something we can model computationally, and if we understood its mechanisms in enough detail to do the sort of simulation-and-explanation in my thought experiment -- then, I claim, it would be difficult to maintain that there is really a separate "hard problem" of consciousness that remains untouched no matter how thoroughly we solve the "easy problem" of explaining the physical processes by which it works. If I'm right about that, I think it weakens the arguments used to suggest that here in the real world there is a separate "hard problem" that we should be very perplexed by.

(There are actually two different scenarios in which consciousness might be non-computational, and they have different implications for the thought experiment. One is where the "mechanisms" of consciousness are non-computational. In this scenario, my thought experiment could never come true: the world isn't put together in the right way for it to work, because that computer simulation will never produce the same behaviour as actual conscious humans exhibit. The other is where the mechanisms are all computable, and everything in the thought experiment goes through perfectly OK, but there's some further Essence Of Consciousness that we have and our simulations don't, without which we get all the same behaviours, right up to writing books about the nature of phenomenal consciousness or poems about the actual phenomena, but "no one's home" -- there are no real experiences, only behaviours that falsely report experiences. I think the second position is held by many people who worry about "the hard problem", and I don't think it really makes sense, but again that isn't quite the point I was trying to make, though it is closely related.)

[uptownfunk]

This is really interesting, really interested in learning more about this. Is this an opinion specific to your own understanding or a belief held by a broader group of academics?

[mkaic]

Yes, this is a belief held by a broader group of people, but I haven't booked up on it much myself. Some quick googles for "Quantum consciousness" and "consciousness as a fundamental field" brought up some of the arguments I remembered hearing about:

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

[1] https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/video/consciousness-as-...

As I understand it, a common form of this framework is basically panpsychism, but more science-y and less metaphysics-y. Some people believe that consciousness may arise from a fundamental field in the universe just like how there's an electromagnetic field or a Higgs field. I vaguely remember hearing one theory that posits intelligent life forms are to the field of consciousness what photons/electrons are to the electromagnetic field — that is to say, spikes or clusters of energy in the field that stand out drastically against the background noise.