|
|
|
|
|
|
by simonh
1121 days ago
|
|
|
I think for consciousness you need a sophisticated mental model of the world, but also a sophisticated mental model of other intentional agents and their mental processes. You need to be able to reason about the knowledge, beliefs and likely actions of others. When this is generalised to enable modelling and reasoning about our own knowledge, beliefs and intentions, that’s consciousness. We literally become aware of ourselves in ways we can reason about. I actually don’t think most living things, even animals, are conscious. Mammals and some other higher animals possibly. Simple organisms have simple sense/response nervous systems. Their reactions are mostly automatic, but can learn basic patterns of stimuli. |
|
|
A random find[1] that I found interesting. Some quotes:
A growing set of experiments therefore appears to establish a key prediction of [Attention Schema Theory]: without consciousness of an item, attention on the item is still possible, but the control of attention with respect to that item almost entirely breaks down. The relationship is not “consciousness is attention”; instead, it is “consciousness is necessary for the control of attention.”
AST also predicts that people construct models of other people’s attention [...]. Ample evidence confirms that this is so.
Activity in at least some subregions of the [temporoparietal junction] has also been found in association with one’s own attention. Moreover, TPJ activity is associated with the interaction between attention and reported consciousness. A recent study argued that this activity is consistent with error correction of a predictive model of attention.
[1]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116933119 (open access)