>>13848807>A complex supercomputer is not capable of sight because it has no eyes.A complex supercomputer would be capable of anxiety if you spiked its circuits with cortisol? Think about the implications of your statements for a second.
>No, it's my assertion that a brain has to be complex to create consciousnessThat spider performs a mating dance for female spiders as a means to attract them. As I said, they have pinhead-sized brains, yet display such complex, conscious behavior.
Soientists every ten years or so disable a different part of the brain using electricity and say, "Look! The locus coeruleus is responsible for consciousness!" What they're really doing is disrupting the electrical field that IS consciousness, similar to how knocking someone out shakes the static off their brain, disembodying consciousness momentarily until those ion channels can restore electrical function (but obviously not until every chemical and genetic process starts back up again; the brain does not stop synthesizing and utilizing ATP in the split second a knockout takes).
>How? Utter bullshit.Look at them. They are not directed by random mechanical processes. They do not act as automata.
Similarly, each individual neuron generates an electrical field and is conscious.
>I don't know what "simulating consciousness" even means in the context of a brain.
Simple: all the evolutionary advantages of consciousness without the subjective experience.
>Perhaps consciousness is a necessary part of the pathwayExplain how, even theoretically. If such complex phenomena can develop randomly and without conscious direction, there must be a reason for the origin of subjective consciousness. Utilitarian reasons are insufficient for their reliance upon aforementioned random and unconscious direction, which, if allowed, eliminate the need for subjective conscious experience
>So you nothingNeural prostheses allow us to experience the consciousness of sound without a a nervous system part
