Good start, though the study reveals that these scientists still think that “consciousness” and “conscious” are the same thing.
How can we scientifically recognize that “conscious” is only a subset of “consciousness”?
Here’s something else
> consciousness seems to have no causal power to confer a fitness advantage, so its evolution remains as an inexplicable mystery.
I advocate that life evolved from consciousness rather than the other way around.
Life is a technology for extending the feedback loop of consciousness from the otherwise inanimate substrate.
Consciousness is computationally superior for it relies on constructive and destructive interference to project and predict where conventional mechanics are linear and exponentially more energy intensive. We have not “learned” this yet due to our primitive entry into quantum computation (still using qubits and all, rather than seeing the domain as a holographic sieve; remember, “constructive and destructive interference”.)
overu589•8mo ago
How can we scientifically recognize that “conscious” is only a subset of “consciousness”?
Here’s something else
> consciousness seems to have no causal power to confer a fitness advantage, so its evolution remains as an inexplicable mystery.
I advocate that life evolved from consciousness rather than the other way around.
Life is a technology for extending the feedback loop of consciousness from the otherwise inanimate substrate.
Consciousness is computationally superior for it relies on constructive and destructive interference to project and predict where conventional mechanics are linear and exponentially more energy intensive. We have not “learned” this yet due to our primitive entry into quantum computation (still using qubits and all, rather than seeing the domain as a holographic sieve; remember, “constructive and destructive interference”.)