The existential basis of consciousness: to the analysis of epistemological limits of symbolic description of the consciousness functions
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to establish the epistemological limits of the symbolic description of the consciousness functions. As a result of the study, the author comes to the conclusion that consciousness cannot be explained in computational terms, as there is something in its activity that goes beyond purely algorithmic actions. This is due to the small resource of human memory and there is no clearly fixed, clear purpose. In a situation of such uncertainty, it is impossible to build a clear algorithm of actions in advance, so a person is “doomed” to be a free and creative being. According to the author, consciousness is always opened through activity when it correlates behavior with space-time, cultural contexts, therefore, the existential basis of consciousness is revealed through its manifestation in the “world of ideas”, in the “world of values”, as well as in the “world of activity”, which helps to overcome the boundaries between these worlds in a single integrity of being.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Abuzjarova M.I. (2018). Tendencies, law of development and economic content of innovative entrepreneurship. Modern Economy Success. Issue. 1. P. 43-50.
Aminova D. K., & Tsakhaeva, A. A. (2018). Effective preparation of the future psychologist as one of the elements of the security education system. International Journal of Medicine and Psychology. Vol. 1. Issue 3. P. 40 – 47.
Ashmarov I.A. (2018). Some approaches to the study of the USSR’ military economy in the soviet and russian national historiography. Historical Bulletin. Vol. 1. Issue 2. P. 19 – 31.
Badakhovа I.T. (2017). Formation of professionally significant qualities of future managers in the training process forming. Modern Scientist. Issue 7. P. 81 – 84.
Bogdanova, V.O., Borisov, S.V. (2016). The Problem of the Subject in Constructivist Philosophical Models: the Principles of Forming a Typology, Rupkatha Journal On Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 8 (1), 235-244.
Churchland P.M. (2005) Functionalism at forty: a critical retrospective, Journal of Philosophy,1, 33-50.
Dennett D. (2004). Types of psyche: On the way to understanding consciousness, M.: Idea-Press.
Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness Explained, N. Y.: Little Brown & Co.
Dreyfus, H.L. (1972). What Computers Can’t Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence, New York: Colophon Books.
Fodor, J.A. (1975). The Language of Thought, М.А.: Harvard University Press.
Gnatyuk S.N., Pekert N.А. (2018). Education as a factor of sustainable development of agriculture. Russian Economic Bulletin. Vol. 1. Issue 3. P. 18 – 27.
Hintikka Ya. (2011) Philosophical research: problems and prospects, Problems of philosophy, 7, 3 – 17.
Kezin, A.V. (2004). Radical constructivism: knowledge “in a cave”, Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7: Philosophy, 4, 3 – 24.
Penrose, R. (2003). New mind of the king. On computers, thinking and the laws of physics, M.: Editorial URSS.
Petrunin, Yu.Yu. (1994) Artificial intelligence as a phenomenon of modern culture, Moscow University Bulletin. Series 7: Philosophy, 2, 28 – 33.
Putnam, H. (1960) Minds and machines, Dimensions of Mind, N. Y.: New York University Press, 148–179.
Vasilyev, V.V. (2009). Difficult problem of consciousness, M.: Progress-Tradition.
Vernadsky V.I. (2012) Biosphere and noosphere, M.: Iris-press.
Vinnik, D.V. (2010) Physical, functional and mental states: the problem of correlation, Philosophy of science, 2 (45), 92 – 104.
Yulina, N.S. (2011) Physicalism: Divergent vectors of consciousness research, Problems of philosophy,9, 153 – 166.
Zinchenko, V.P. (1991). Artificial intelligence and paradoxes of psychology, The future of artificial intelligence, M.: Science, 185-193.
