On thinking machines
Seeing what I can do computers, both in terms of computing power-especially - by analogy with human reasoning, one wonders whether and to what extent we can say that a machine really think. The task of handling Symbols in obedience to rules does not exhaust the logical thought, in case it forms the central fragment, however, beyond which there is a before and after, given the significance of symbols and purpose that moved the particular activity of thought. Conscious thought is, however, this same manipulative activities with the addition of something that you can not define. Thought thinks itself in its mechanisms, but in its essence is completely beyond.
There is in the depths of my being a reality where the evidence is glaring, but resists any attempt to be described by models or defined by words. It is to take note of the fact that everything is my being a member of the world it deceptively consider external (and pretend to study in the scientific enterprise as a detached observer). Belong to the body, the senses (and experience), but even the reasoning, which is not possible without a physical system, namely the brain, the organ of mind. The body-under-brain processes experiences constantly modifying and adapting itself continuously in two directions: towards the future as a computing system and anticipatory, toward the past as memory, the prediction is based on past experience (prejudice) and memory changes its character according to the objectives which in turn are priority (hermeneutics). Within this activity is apparent in some mysterious way a silent witness who is not participating, but it gives meaning to the whole process. It is the ability and the possibility of transcendence of the subject that somehow justifies his "arise" out of the world, only that what is out there himself, or rather all that it can be told using the same language you talk to the world. The knowledge that can arise following this route is less operational knowledge of the ordinary, quite indescribable and totally intuitive, but not least "knowledge". It is the clear vision of the world as it is, is absolutely useless and unusable because the kingdom of ends is the very world from which the subject stands out as the rest, what remains when the friend I get rid of every aspect of objectivity is the inoggettivabile, the silent witness 'I-am, "pure consciousness.
Consciousness is the key concept in the cognitive process. Traditional science can not explain consciousness in terms of more primitive entities and relationships belonging to the domain of modeling (and therefore to some extent the reducible to physics). Usually, what traditional science can not explain is cleared by the ontology of our culture. With a clear conscience This can not be done because his evidence has all the characteristics required by the Galilean method. It is playable experience, accessible to everyone, without exception. Fall can not be done in the same area - for example - the miraculous healings that are not reproducible and evident only to those who were directly involved. Anyone who has experience of consciousness, without exception. It should be possible for an explanation (ie a reduction), or at least a definition, but this is not the case. There is nothing as obvious as the conscience and at the same time there is nothing so indefinable and inexplicable. Placing themselves in front of spirit genuinely phenomenological to this issue so mysterious, we can make some consideration.
consciousness is outside of space and time, unlike the actions. It is not localized in one spot, is something that exists but does not occupy a place, not even seem to inhabit the time it is in fact the only thing that remains strictly unchanged throughout the course of human life. It skirts the time, in the sense that it is present along with the actions and changes, yet does not act dumb.
human experiences are inevitably partial and limited, confined to a particular area, so our representation of reality is for institutions, and we represent ourselves as as bodies, demarcated and permanent. But in this representation is unlikely to emerge something like consciousness, that is not "what" but the center invisible thread that supports the subject within the whole, which is why I believe that consciousness is best seen as a property of Being, of all reality, of which individual lives are instances and events. In other words, each of us has a particular history in situations of dependency that is to live, but in these situations is also an actor and he responds in a peculiar way of being, this mode is the deepest essence of my being, is something that exists before and out of me as a possibility of being and that he had the opportunity to manifest itself in a specific context within my life. With all this, consciousness does not cease to be individual as each of us creates special opportunities, concrete form as a series of responses to certain situations (which is what we mean when we think of our lives). Finally, I do not create major problems that the levels of consciousness in the universe can be manifold, as there are many possibilities at all, and man it is only the realization of higher complexity.