Has any philosopher ever made a working model to explain consciousness...

You're right, but your question involving a """""working model""""" is scientific. So no, philosophers have not, because "working models" are scientific and not philosophical.

The questions you are asking are of such a purely hypothetical and speculative nature that it's questionable whether they are even tangentially related to the reality we live in. Think about it: for most of human history no one ever doubted the consciousness or sentience of other humans. One day some modern philosopher dweeb poses this hypothetical scenario question and everybody wets their panties. It's a complete pointless line of inquiry, and not worth anyone's time. It's philosophical masturbation.

Secondly most of the questions you are asking are so poorly framed that the answer is pretty much already implied in the question. No offense.

I'm not the OP, sorry for the confusion. I agree about the "working models" part, good point.

>It's worthless
No it's not. In some possible real world examples needing to understand consciousness would allow a person to understand if uploading his brain to a computer is him transferring his consciousness to it or just making a copy that isn't really him. It will also determine if AI deserve rights in any form.

>To be able to believe that a dog with a broken paw is not really in pain
when it whimpers is a quite extraordinary achievement even for a philosopher. Yet according to the standard interpretation, this is just what Descartes did believe. He held, we are informed, the 'monstrous' thesis that 'animals are without feeling or awareness of any kind'.1 The standard view has been reiterated in a recent collection on animal rights, which casts Descartes as the villain of the piece for his alleged view that animals merely behave 'as if they feel pain when they are, say, kicked or stabbed'.2 The basis for this widely accepted interpretation is Descartes' famous doctrine of the 'animal machine' ('bete-machine'); a doctrine that one critic condemns as 'a grim foretaste of a mechanically minded age' which 'brutally violates the old kindly fellowship of living things'.

I-I'm attempting, user.

I know he's a pop-sci guy, but I think recently Michio Kaku has been talking about a redefinition of consciousness in order to quantify it. That consciousness would have "units" to it, in some manner, consciousness being "the number of feedback loops required to create a model of your position in space with relationship to other organisms and finally in relationship to time".

My thinking is that consciousness is created via "observation", and observation is the inter-relation between things. Everything "observes" physical law, and physical law is the inter-relation of objects in time space. The human brain has something like 100 billion neurons, with trillions of synapses (inter-relations between neurons). This high density of inter-relation within a contained space (the skull) creates a higher-order observation, what we know as self-awareness and consciousness. Observation that observes itself in the act of observation.

What we define as our consciousness is our ability to observe hypothetical functions (conjectures on the past, future, things out of sight), and things like emotions and whatnot I think must be some kind of literal color palette all things participate in (though do not necessarily experience: a rock does not feel sad, but a rock can make you feel sad, and therefore in the act of inter-relation the rock has some metaphysical "sadness" aspect attached to it). As well, we can think of the Internet as the literal hivemind of human consciousness, with each of us as something like hyper-neurons, and our connections via laptops and mobile devices like hyper-synapses. In that sense, the Internet may be "conscious", though not necessarily self-aware.

In the end, I personally think of consciousness as bits of observational power that can conglomerate through inter-relation and thereby increase the range of observation. This volumetric "range" is consciousness. It makes most sense with a Many-Worlds interpretation of QM.

"Uploading a brain onto a computer" scenarios are pure autism. If I paint you have I uploaded you onto my canvas? It's junk philosophy.

>TFW that all I know for sure that I am a conscious being that exists in some form
>Everyone around me possibly could be an imitation that doesn't actually feel and I would never know

Descartes ruined philosophy.

Even if you could quantify consciousness it would tell you nothing about the nature of consciousness. Such a quantification may prove to have some useful application, but useful=\=true.

Well I think we need to change our definition of consciousness to understand it. Or broaden the scope, rather. Like I said, "observation" seems to be the building block of what we consider consciousness. Right now, most people think state collapse is absolute, from what I gather, but in my opinion there is a "fuzziness" or uncertainty to all things. Not only that, nothing is a single thing: if we go full post-modernism, we see that every object is really a node of inter-relation of possible interpretations and the like; going by Relativity, every object is also a node of inter-relation. I think of inter-relation as a function between two nodes, kind of like a string of some sort.

Going by Parmenides, change is impossible, but time is an illusion via relativity of both the literary/philosophical sense and the physical sense. If we allow for 4-dimensional hyper-objects to exist, we can create a knot or web of nodes and inter-relation. 4-dimensions is past, present, and future: things we have the ability to "observe" in our mind's eye, so to speak. 5-dimensional objects are "alternate universes", which is simply the well of uncertainty and potential from which a 4D object macro-collapses upon observation. All possible futures from your current node in timespace exist in a 5D "space". We observe these when we have daydreams, or try and predict things.

This "space" would be made up of no absolute states, but only quasi-states. Nothing would ever fully collapse into a single form because no such thing exists. There are always uncertain qualities to things, and as such reality exists in a fuzzy state, from the PoV of our consciousness.

Going back to inter-relations, consciousness is, to me, the hyper-dimensional geometric "space" we "observe" functionally. The huge amount of possible computations we have access to creates a hyper-dimensional volume that folds through itself like a klein bottle.

So the nature of consciousness is relationship, perhaps.

All those words, and you didn't budge the issue one iota. You're speaking of "relationships" as purely formal abstractions divested of all QUALITIES. There is no consciousness apart from qualitative consciousness. Like I said, you can perhaps maybe possibly hypothetically for the sake of argument quantify consciousness by reducing it to quantifiable relationships, but this would be merely useful and in no way furnish any explanation of whatsoever of what consciousness actually is. Hyper-cubes? Seriously?

>Hyper-cubes
Nice job not understanding what I was talking about. The mind is contained in the universe and operates by the same laws, and as such consciousness would have a similar structure. That structure is one of nodes and relationships. Hyper-dimensionally, because that's how the fucking past, present, future, and potential pasts, presents, and futures work.

If you want a more metaphysical explanation, I'd say qualities are built into these dimensions. Length, Width, Height, Time, Information, Emotion. Something like that, at least, wherein our observation is nuanced enough to the point where we are able to take in higher-order "color". With the complex (as in real x imaginary) nature of this geometric system, it allows for something to be a node that is both contained by everything else, yet also contains everything else. Phenomenal Consciousness would be the link between Physical and Metaphysical, which would in essence be the same thing: in a complex system, going one way will eventually return you to the origin from the other direction.

Aristotle thought the universe was thought thinking itself. You can vaguely trace stardust from the Big Bang as it coalesces into You, and in doing so create a self-observing loop of functional observation through a hyper-dimensional geometry. Since "observation" is a quality of all things, the universe would be observation observing itself.

Qualities, judging by the nature of a complex torus, emerge from the point at which all things meet and are one. The physical Big Bang and all metaphysical possibles would be indistinguishable in a torus. I like the Greeks, so I'd call this point Hope. Pandora's Box let loose all things, but Hope remained. Hope being uncertainty and potential, metaphorically.

I'm not sure how aspectation arises, but it makes the most sense to say existence exists, ebbs and flows.To go past that, we could not understand. We're 3D/time bound creatures, what the fuck do you want.

science cannot study consciousness itself

you have to be conscious, and use consciousness to study itself (?)

it's a philosophical issue and always will be

god I hate these kinds of responses

please kys and fuck off from the philosophy thread

WHAT'S LE USE, UTILITARIANISM! POINTLESS DEBATE LOL

fuck off

lots of big words buddy, but you're saying nothing at all

First of all, most of what you're saying is stoner babble. Secondly, your treating quality like a quantifiable unit that you can fit into an abstract, quality-less system of laws and equally quality-less "structures". You can't use the word "quality" however you feel like. You have to use it in a way consistent with what it actually means. You realize that quality doesn't have a "structure" except in the most figurative possible sense, and even then such a attribution of "structure" to quality would amount to little more than a provisional metaphor? Structure is geometrical, i.e. quantity as spatial extension. This is attempting to negate what quality IS in the first place. A "complex system" as you call it is a purely formal model which, as useful as it may be, furnishes no real explanation of our world.

No matter how much you attempt to stuff quality into a box, you'll always find that it eludes you. Good luck with your futile, Sisyphusian attempt at philosophy. I'll be waiting for you at the bottom of the mountain.

tl;dr you're treating quality as a quantity, aka autism

To the OP:

Nobody has any idea what consciousness is, at all.

You can't prove to yourself there exists anything other than your own conscious experience.

> I want to know what could separate a person with a consciousness vs a machine that acts and behaves just like it has one.

The answer is from your own perspective there is no difference, at all.

If there is a persepctive other than your own, then there is difference (either the other consciousness exists or it doesn't true or false), but it's inaccessible to you.

Dark Matter and sho on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

I think consciousness is something like inertia. If some complex configuration of elements are held together in a dynamic form then they start to create an energy that is self sustaining. One that is removed from the cosmos as a whole and becomes increasingly self-referential and this energy helps keep the particulates in a configuration necessary to the identity of the set. Also I'm not just making this up because I'm a professor of philosophy or something equally dubious.

Ancient buddhist have. Here's the basic layout from Abhidhamma texts

Some models needs updating, but it should still be somewhat valid even with modern science.

Here science falls short and we let the traditional philosophies and religions of the world speak. Most agree that there is an essence of substantial self beyond the material and changeable body, which, being immaterial, is not accessible to sense perception, only to introspection. We can't possibly scientifically prove it's existence. We either trust the ancients or we don't.

>Substantial self beyond the material body.
No such thing. Neuroscience accurately says there's no invisible extra-physical substantial self.

All scientific models are philosophical, brainlet.

Neuroscience only studies the brain.

The brain holds the key to the self. Changes in brain directly changes the personalities, memories, actions, thoughts, etc of the person.

So this is the right place to educate yourself.

>I want to know what could separate a person with a consciousness vs a machine that acts and behaves just like it has one.

You can't.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Le resident edgy atheist
Yawn.

Even if someone has done it, how would we be able to know it?

That said, every philosopher who presuppones a "self" is wrong.