5 ms·

Technically though describing consciousness as emergent property of neural functioning is a conjecture, though a very credible one. Unlike turbulence, I only h

Technically though describing consciousness as emergent property of neural functioning is a conjecture, though a very credible one. Unlike turbulence, I only have one case where I have ever seen this consciousness which I am trying to explain as an epiphenomenon, namely my own. All others consciousness (if they even exist which I can't prove directly) are not remotely observed in the same way, they are self reported by other people. So you have the question of why I can only directly perceive that emergent property in exactly one brain and not others. Likewise you'd have to explain why the emergent property is apparently continuous through my whole lifetime over which my brain changes enormously. Finally you'd have to deal with the hypothetical case where I am duplicated molecule for molecule and then ask which consciousness would I have direct access to, the duplicate or the original. So while dualism is obviously patently absurd, the idea of consciousness as epiphenomenon, while promising, needs work too.

CuriousSkeptic 10y ago
You have some assumption wrt time in there. To say that your consciousness is continuous relies on you trusting your memory of it being so, which, lacking a time machine, is no more provable or observable than others consciousness. Removing the continuity assumption, perhaps even time, kind resolves the duplicate question: both copies (if conscious) should have a memory of conscious you and experience their consciousness being a continuation of that, while you, now you, are as removed from those future copies, as you are from me. One question, that seems tied to consciousness, is what is "now"? Are there objective reasons to believe in the existence of a canonical "now" existing independent of conscious experience? If not then there really is no point in distinguishing either momental or continuous experiences as special in any way. Perhaps consciousness just emerges as an interpretation of a single state connecting past and future by memory and anticipation, it's simply appears continuous like the series of images at the top of the article appears to be.
- whybroke 10y ago
  Yes this is my favorite explanation: that consciousness is incredibly brief and delicate. That only one very precise organization of the brain could give rise to the epiphenomenon that is me. So precise in fact that "I" only exist for a very brief moment. What I perceive as a continuous consciousness is really just a memory of other "I"s who were caused by this brain in the past, left a memory of introspection and then dissipated to be replaced by an new one. This view has many advantages: it solves the problem of time you elude to, it answers the problem of other minds and the problem of my childhood self. The only problem I can not see solved is the hypothetical molecular level duplicate I mentioned above.
bertiewhykovich 10y ago
Why is dualism's patent absurdity obvious?
- cgio 10y ago
  Because if something occurs outside the current laws of physics it does not mean it's not natural, rather that the laws of physics need to adjust and take it into account.
  - gyim 10y ago
    Except that if your conscience (and everything in you) is under the _laws_ of physics, it implies that you are a deterministic or randomized machine. But then it is not easy to explain free will, for example. You could say that if it exists, it is a physical phenomenon, but what laws does it conform to? So most naturalists say that free will is just an illusion, but I personally would not call this a "patently obvious" choice. (I think it is a "Very Large Mistake")
- whybroke 10y ago
  If every bodily action is caused ultimately by things explained by physics, as is clearly the case, then there is no room for a non-phiscal mind. Put another way, using our current knowledge of physics and chemistry, we can, on a high level anyway, account for every item in the cause and effect chain from the photons hitting the retina to the arm that a person raises to shade his eyes. There is no room to insert anything into that causal chain let alone something so massively influential that it causes all the body actions that we consider driven by conscious choice. Thus whatever is going on must be made from very ordinary matter. It's this very fact that makes it such a fun puzzle to look at, very ordinary mater maybe doing something (causing consciousness) that is wildly unexpected.
robotresearcher 10y ago
I don't see a major problem with the difference between your own and other consciousness. Let's say you are American, and had never travelled abroad. You've only heard tales of France and Japan from others. Do you suspect that other countries have a fundamentally different nature to your own? >So you have the question of why I can only directly perceive that emergent property in exactly one brain and not others You are the thing carrying around that brain and sense organs, and the plumbing thereof. This is a unique situation, hence the uniqueness. > Likewise you'd have to explain why the emergent property is apparently continuous through my whole lifetime over which my brain changes enormously. Emergent phenomenon can be very robust, such as Jupiter's spot which was observed 340 years ago, or the common orbital plane of the solar system, which is billions of years old. Also, your consciousness is not continuous. You turn (at least some of) it off when you go to sleep. Very curious! It's at least robustly bistable! > Finally you'd have to deal with the hypothetical case where I am duplicated molecule for molecule and then ask which consciousness would I have direct access to, the duplicate or the original. This seems very simple too. There are two copies of you at the instant of duplication, which diverge from that moment on. You1 would have access to the consciousness of You1's nervous system and You2 that created by You2's nervous system. This question is only difficult if you insist on something other than the bodies being involved.
- whybroke 10y ago
  Consider the story from your own personal point of view not as an observer. I put you in a duplication chamber. In front of you is a card with the letter "A" In a neighboring identical empty chamber is card with a "B" on it. You close your eyes and I pull a big steam-punk lever and an exact copy of you is made in chamber B When you open your eyes, what letter do you see and why?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jarwain 10y ago
    I would see A. The cloned me in chamber B would be brought into existence at that moment. They would share all the memories as me, and believe to be the one in chamber A. May be slightly confused about why the letter changed, unless you prepared yourself beforehand. But the original observer that was put into the duplication chamber, would maintain their letter A

CuriousSkeptic 10y ago

You have some assumption wrt time in there. To say that your consciousness is continuous relies on you trusting your memory of it being so, which, lacking a time machine, is no more provable or observable than others consciousness. Removing the continuity assumption, perhaps even time, kind resolves the duplicate question: both copies (if conscious) should have a memory of conscious you and experience their consciousness being a continuation of that, while you, now you, are as removed from those future copies, as you are from me. One question, that seems tied to consciousness, is what is "now"? Are there objective reasons to believe in the existence of a canonical "now" existing independent of conscious experience? If not then there really is no point in distinguishing either momental or continuous experiences as special in any way. Perhaps consciousness just emerges as an interpretation of a single state connecting past and future by memory and anticipation, it's simply appears continuous like the series of images at the top of the article appears to be.

whybroke 10y ago
Yes this is my favorite explanation: that consciousness is incredibly brief and delicate. That only one very precise organization of the brain could give rise to the epiphenomenon that is me. So precise in fact that "I" only exist for a very brief moment. What I perceive as a continuous consciousness is really just a memory of other "I"s who were caused by this brain in the past, left a memory of introspection and then dissipated to be replaced by an new one. This view has many advantages: it solves the problem of time you elude to, it answers the problem of other minds and the problem of my childhood self. The only problem I can not see solved is the hypothetical molecular level duplicate I mentioned above.

bertiewhykovich 10y ago

Why is dualism's patent absurdity obvious?

cgio 10y ago
Because if something occurs outside the current laws of physics it does not mean it's not natural, rather that the laws of physics need to adjust and take it into account.
- gyim 10y ago
  Except that if your conscience (and everything in you) is under the _laws_ of physics, it implies that you are a deterministic or randomized machine. But then it is not easy to explain free will, for example. You could say that if it exists, it is a physical phenomenon, but what laws does it conform to? So most naturalists say that free will is just an illusion, but I personally would not call this a "patently obvious" choice. (I think it is a "Very Large Mistake")
whybroke 10y ago
If every bodily action is caused ultimately by things explained by physics, as is clearly the case, then there is no room for a non-phiscal mind. Put another way, using our current knowledge of physics and chemistry, we can, on a high level anyway, account for every item in the cause and effect chain from the photons hitting the retina to the arm that a person raises to shade his eyes. There is no room to insert anything into that causal chain let alone something so massively influential that it causes all the body actions that we consider driven by conscious choice. Thus whatever is going on must be made from very ordinary matter. It's this very fact that makes it such a fun puzzle to look at, very ordinary mater maybe doing something (causing consciousness) that is wildly unexpected.

robotresearcher 10y ago

I don't see a major problem with the difference between your own and other consciousness. Let's say you are American, and had never travelled abroad. You've only heard tales of France and Japan from others. Do you suspect that other countries have a fundamentally different nature to your own? >So you have the question of why I can only directly perceive that emergent property in exactly one brain and not others You are the thing carrying around that brain and sense organs, and the plumbing thereof. This is a unique situation, hence the uniqueness. > Likewise you'd have to explain why the emergent property is apparently continuous through my whole lifetime over which my brain changes enormously. Emergent phenomenon can be very robust, such as Jupiter's spot which was observed 340 years ago, or the common orbital plane of the solar system, which is billions of years old. Also, your consciousness is not continuous. You turn (at least some of) it off when you go to sleep. Very curious! It's at least robustly bistable! > Finally you'd have to deal with the hypothetical case where I am duplicated molecule for molecule and then ask which consciousness would I have direct access to, the duplicate or the original. This seems very simple too. There are two copies of you at the instant of duplication, which diverge from that moment on. You1 would have access to the consciousness of You1's nervous system and You2 that created by You2's nervous system. This question is only difficult if you insist on something other than the bodies being involved.

whybroke 10y ago
Consider the story from your own personal point of view not as an observer. I put you in a duplication chamber. In front of you is a card with the letter "A" In a neighboring identical empty chamber is card with a "B" on it. You close your eyes and I pull a big steam-punk lever and an exact copy of you is made in chamber B When you open your eyes, what letter do you see and why?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Jarwain 10y ago
  I would see A. The cloned me in chamber B would be brought into existence at that moment. They would share all the memories as me, and believe to be the one in chamber A. May be slightly confused about why the letter changed, unless you prepared yourself beforehand. But the original observer that was put into the duplication chamber, would maintain their letter A