[anon-3988]

No, I don't think you understand how fundamentally hard the question is. See the hard problem of consciousness[1]. When you think about gravity, you can imagine a universe where gravity is reversed. All of the physics seems mechanical, or probabilistics or whatever. But "there's there there" is a completely different phenomena that I think we will never have an answer for.

There doesn't seem to be a continuity, either something is there, or there isn't. You can be drunk, hallucinating, feel extremely dizzy, trapped in a vat, trapped inside another universe inside vat, trapped as a figment of reality of other beings, but the fact that "there's there there" is binary. It is something that cannot be divided or peeked into. A kind of fundamental atomic property.

1. https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

[anon84873628]

I understand the hard problem. There clearly is a continuum of "consciousness" from simple insects on up to primates & cetaceans, and the complexity of that consciousness is correlated with the structural complexity of the brain. Creating minds is just what brains do.

Anyway, I was specifically responding to the parent comment statements about the research needed, pointing out that we already have it.

[prolyxis]

I don't think neural correlates of consciousness have been identified, so clearly there remains research to be done. I'm not in touch with the neuroscience literature, but acknowledging the hard problem of consciousness means one should accept there is a lot of work remaining. That being said, I believe the hard problem is surmountable. In my mind the situation is similar to computer science before Turing's description of the Turing machine: there were imprecise notions abound about what computation meant that needed to be clarified through a concrete model. My view is simply that finer control over conscious experience would aid understanding enormously. But you're right, I should probably skim the real research more.