Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The author argues that consciousness may never be defined or explained with entities or their properties. Instead, the author proposes a system with matter, energy, and lives as its components, and with all its components defined as changes. Based on the relationships among these three components, a triple definition or explanation of consciousness is reached:•Ontologically, consciousness is universal, since it is the distinction between matter and energy. •Epistemologically, consciousness is unique, since it is the energy formalized, qualified, or diversified by the matter.•Semantically, consciousness is a meaningless language with lives as its only meaning. In other words, only lives are, but consciousness is not, the cause or effect of mental activities. It is, therefore, deducible that a non-biological machine can be both intelligent and conscious, and may even have a mind of its own.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xinyan Zhang (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: