I think that just like Dr. Koch addressed in the lecture, if consciousness was truly replicated in the sense that an AI entity had the ability to hold cause-and-effect power over their “mind,” then consciousness might be achieved. I think his answer to “if we could fully stimulate a human brain, would it be conscious?” was interesting. He said there is a profound difference between simulation and experience. The computer’s sensation and perception is created, chosen, and transferred to it by a human programmer, not directed by it’s internal “freewill.”

Do I believe that computers can ever be conscious? I think computer science has the ability to create artificial intelligence with different levels or states of consciousness that arise from maybe a “law” or “constant” that is programmed in it. In other words if we somehow replicate a form of DNA and the computer grows and learns from those rules based off of perceptive experiences. But to be honest, I don’t believe we can ever scientifically define consciousness; I think we will just be able to describe it. I believe we were created by God and bear His image and this is beyond the scope of not only science and physics, but even the philosophy of Descartes.

I think the subjectivity of human perception is a problem for the scientific method unless a constant(s) is found for the mind. Relativity in physics, from the point of the observer, is “allowed” or able to be structured in an objective way because of the constant of the speed of light. Motion is a relative concept (we’re always in a state of perpetual motion if you’re considering our placement in relation to the sun and stars, but we could also be in a state of rest on our couch), but Newton’s Laws of Motion can still be operationalized scientifically. A constant or some sort of law of nature is needed to sort through and unify all subjective experiences.

I also think that knowledge derived from the scientific method is reduced down to it’s simplest, foundational components. To me, it seems that the mind is more of a complex web of interactions between top-down and bottom-up processing, nature and nurture, objective and subjective, feeling and logic. It seems to always be a trade off between qualitative and quantitative. A case study might reveal synergistic details behind someone’s experiences with discrimination, but when you try and operationalize one variable (or even a few – like cultural immersion and stereotypical experiences and mindset beliefs) in hopes of quantizing discriminatory experience, you’re often left with more questions than answers and it seems that you’re over-simplifying someone’s life experiences. How could you know every detail about that person’s life shaping them into who they are?

Well, I guess it depends on how you define knowledge. What is the philosophical frame of mind you believe in or are using? For instance, when you use the deductive logic and reductionism of the scientific method, it seems that the mind is too complex or subjective/qualitative to truly understand at times. At least in that way/form of knowledge. However, when I take a step back and think about what I can truly know in general, I suppose it does seem like the only thing for certain that I can understand is that I feel and know my own consciousness. It seems like all we can truly know about what’s outside of us in the world (including other people’s consciousness) will always be indirect. Does it matter? My first thought is that if we don’t hold authority on this or can’t change it, I’m not sure if we could even decide that it matters or not. But I do think since it seems all of our consciousness have this innate desire for meaning and purpose, there must be something to that.