Rolls presents a model of visual consciousness. Mandik presents his view on the neurophilosophy of consciousness. In your opinion, is Rolls's model a trivial or substantive view of consciousness?
Reference: http://www.petemandik.com/philosophy/papers/neurophilconsc.html (attached)© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 9:35 am ad1c9bdddf
In your opinion, is Rolls's model a trivial or substantive view of consciousness? The subject of consciousness raises a number of questions and answers if one understands the greater issue at hand. Mandik's main view on the neurophilosophy of consciousness chiefly discusses, "what it is that we are conscious of. When one has a conscious state...one is conscious of something, as when I am conscious of a buzzing insect. Things may vary with respect to whether I am conscious of them, as when I am only intermittently conscious of the conversation at a nearby table in a restaurant. What does it mean to be conscious of something? Conscious states have certain properties—their phenomenal character—properties in virtue of which there is "something it is like" to be in that state. When I have a conscious perception of a cup of coffee there is, presumably, something it is like for me to have that perception and, for all I know, what it is like for you to have a conscious perception of a cup of coffee is quite different. What makes a conscious state have "something it is like" to be in that state? Neurophilosophical theories of consciousness bring neuroscience to bear on answering these three questions of consciousness."
In contrast, Edmond T. Roll's computational neuroscience approach to consciousness has self-similar ideas at a root level. In other words, Mandik's focus is philosophical in relation to the brain, and Roll "considers whether computational processing involved in perceptual and attentional computations is linked to consciousness." Both scholars offer substantive data that's, in point of fact, trivial. Pete Mandik is at William Paterson University in New Jersey, USA; while Roll is at the UK's University of Oxford. Both schools teach very little to nothing about consciousness in their degree programs. Most students in schools around the world are not given information about ...
The solution discusses Edmund T. Rolls' "Computational Neuroscience Approach to Consciousness" in conjunction with Pete Mandik's "Neurophilosophy of Consciousness" and elaborates on how both models offer a trivial or substantive view of the subject matter.
Turing Tests and Consciousness
Turing tests may cause controversy by the argument that the test is concerned strictly with how the subject acts — the external behavior of the machine. In this regard, it takes a behaviorist or functionalist approach to the study of intelligence. The example of ELIZA suggests that a machine passing the test may be able to simulate human conversational behavior by following a simple (but large) list of mechanical rules, without thinking or having a mind at all. However, the artificial brain would act in the same way as a human brain and externally appear as human-like as you and I, but internally it is made out of unconscious materials. This ultimately brings me to the question of whether a few unconscious materials can be constructed together in a way to become conscious Dr. Johnson?