4 ms·

Rather than getting into dualism or non-intuitive philosophy/metaphysics, it's better to view humans as philosophical zombies from the get-go. Consciousness is

Rather than getting into dualism or non-intuitive philosophy/metaphysics, it's better to view humans as philosophical zombies from the get-go. Consciousness is not something we possess from birth, but a self-model that gradually emerges as the organism's cybernetic interactions with the environment increase. It then follows that any process that could disrupt this would lead to people with a not fully-developed sense of self or in other words partial PZombies.

projektir 10y ago
I strongly disagree that it's better since that's effectively implying solipsism and that there are no ethical considerations for doing bad things to people since they, well, don't really exist as agents-that-can-feel-things. Regardless of how hard it is to describe philosophically, and what kind of terms one tries to use, the fact that we process things we feel is the reality of our existence and it drastically modifies how we act.
- voxic11 10y ago
  Why do you think entities without consciousness are not worthy of ethical consideration? Most animals and even human babies don't have it but most people still make a big deal about their ethical treatment.
  - projektir 10y ago
    I don't. I think there's a conflation where "zombie" is interpreted as "lacking consciousness". But the description I'm seeing in the Encyclopedia, as well as LW's definition and my own definition is closer to "entity that doesn't process what they feel" (doesn't feel what they process? Sees blindly? Blargh). > by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie Non-conscious animals are still often perceived as processing feelings and therefore capable of the concept of suffering. You could try imagining being a simple animal, even if it's as simple as a single signal that goes 1 and 0. Zombies don't process any feelings and ethical consideration in their address wouldn't make much sense, it's like being concerned with the ethics relating to a sun or a hydroelectric dam.
    - ZeroFries 10y ago
      Suffering would not exist without consciousness. You people are all conflating self-awareness and consciousness.
      - projektir 10y ago
        Can't agree with you there. These terms are not exactly super solidly defined, but most uses of the term "consciousness" I've seen usually refer to something more advanced than basic signal processing. To quote Wikipedia: > It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. It's a sufficiently vague term that I can't use it to describe what I mean because it will most likely be misinterpreted, and it conflicts a lot with modern views on what is or isn't aware enough that its experiences happen, i.e., the Turing test and the current trend of concern as to whether or not a given animal is intelligent enough.
        ZeroFries 10y ago
        I'm referring to consciousness as awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, not wakefulness, executive control, nor the sense of selfhood, since they all (except, arguably, executive control) depend on awareness. They're poorly defined because our culture has not thought a lot about this, IMO. Hindu philosophy has a much better conceptualization (like Inuit culture has a better conceptualization of the varying states of snow).
  - ZeroFries 10y ago
    Animal and babies have consciousness. Self-awareness != consciousness. Consciousness is the stuff of subjective experience. Self-awareness is a particular flavour of it. I can have experiences without being aware that I'm a being who is having experiences. Also: Self-awareness is a sliding scale, with babies possessing some but less than a full-grown adult. Consciousness is different: either an object has subjective experiences, or it does not.
ZeroFries 10y ago
You're conflating self-awareness and consciousness. See my post below.
- armitron 10y ago
  I'm not conflating them, they're already conflated and not very well defined. Consciousness implies "someone" that is conscious. A self-model in other words. Babies, like most animals, do not possess consciousness in that sense, since in my view there is no self-model there to subjectively experience things. A lot of us are simply assuming that there is but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that shows otherwise. Temporary self-model annihilation can be triggered in many ways and guess what happens? Bits of subjective experience (tastes, smells even pleasure and pain) disappear. People who have been through such experiences (ego-death) report in-hindsight that the feeling of being a conscious agent in space-time completely disappears, and it is simply as if one is absorbed into the environment, no longer separate from it. In that way one can even view the myth of The Fall, as the emergence of consciousness, one is no longer one with nature but now separate from it. Metziger's book is a good overview of such investigations: https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/0465020690/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8 https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/04650...
  - ZeroFries 10y ago
    Again, you are describing a particular type of consciousness. Consciousness is simply subjective experience, or qualia. <People who have been through such experiences (ego-death) report in-hindsight that the feeling of being a conscious agent in space-time completely disappears, and it is simply as if one is absorbed into the environment, no longer separate from it.> There has to be something experiencing the feeling of either being a part of or separate from the environment. If there's a feeling, there is consciousness. Maybe this will help discernment: consciousness is the "space" where feelings/sensations/qualia arise. Any feeling of having a self or not arises in this space.

projektir 10y ago

I strongly disagree that it's better since that's effectively implying solipsism and that there are no ethical considerations for doing bad things to people since they, well, don't really exist as agents-that-can-feel-things. Regardless of how hard it is to describe philosophically, and what kind of terms one tries to use, the fact that we process things we feel is the reality of our existence and it drastically modifies how we act.

voxic11 10y ago
Why do you think entities without consciousness are not worthy of ethical consideration? Most animals and even human babies don't have it but most people still make a big deal about their ethical treatment.
- projektir 10y ago
  I don't. I think there's a conflation where "zombie" is interpreted as "lacking consciousness". But the description I'm seeing in the Encyclopedia, as well as LW's definition and my own definition is closer to "entity that doesn't process what they feel" (doesn't feel what they process? Sees blindly? Blargh). > by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie Non-conscious animals are still often perceived as processing feelings and therefore capable of the concept of suffering. You could try imagining being a simple animal, even if it's as simple as a single signal that goes 1 and 0. Zombies don't process any feelings and ethical consideration in their address wouldn't make much sense, it's like being concerned with the ethics relating to a sun or a hydroelectric dam.
  - ZeroFries 10y ago
    Suffering would not exist without consciousness. You people are all conflating self-awareness and consciousness.
    - projektir 10y ago
      Can't agree with you there. These terms are not exactly super solidly defined, but most uses of the term "consciousness" I've seen usually refer to something more advanced than basic signal processing. To quote Wikipedia: > It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. It's a sufficiently vague term that I can't use it to describe what I mean because it will most likely be misinterpreted, and it conflicts a lot with modern views on what is or isn't aware enough that its experiences happen, i.e., the Turing test and the current trend of concern as to whether or not a given animal is intelligent enough.
      - ZeroFries 10y ago
        I'm referring to consciousness as awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, not wakefulness, executive control, nor the sense of selfhood, since they all (except, arguably, executive control) depend on awareness. They're poorly defined because our culture has not thought a lot about this, IMO. Hindu philosophy has a much better conceptualization (like Inuit culture has a better conceptualization of the varying states of snow).
- ZeroFries 10y ago
  Animal and babies have consciousness. Self-awareness != consciousness. Consciousness is the stuff of subjective experience. Self-awareness is a particular flavour of it. I can have experiences without being aware that I'm a being who is having experiences. Also: Self-awareness is a sliding scale, with babies possessing some but less than a full-grown adult. Consciousness is different: either an object has subjective experiences, or it does not.

ZeroFries 10y ago

You're conflating self-awareness and consciousness. See my post below.

armitron 10y ago
I'm not conflating them, they're already conflated and not very well defined. Consciousness implies "someone" that is conscious. A self-model in other words. Babies, like most animals, do not possess consciousness in that sense, since in my view there is no self-model there to subjectively experience things. A lot of us are simply assuming that there is but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that shows otherwise. Temporary self-model annihilation can be triggered in many ways and guess what happens? Bits of subjective experience (tastes, smells even pleasure and pain) disappear. People who have been through such experiences (ego-death) report in-hindsight that the feeling of being a conscious agent in space-time completely disappears, and it is simply as if one is absorbed into the environment, no longer separate from it. In that way one can even view the myth of The Fall, as the emergence of consciousness, one is no longer one with nature but now separate from it. Metziger's book is a good overview of such investigations: https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/0465020690/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8 https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Tunnel-Science-Mind-Myth/dp/04650...
- ZeroFries 10y ago
  Again, you are describing a particular type of consciousness. Consciousness is simply subjective experience, or qualia. <People who have been through such experiences (ego-death) report in-hindsight that the feeling of being a conscious agent in space-time completely disappears, and it is simply as if one is absorbed into the environment, no longer separate from it.> There has to be something experiencing the feeling of either being a part of or separate from the environment. If there's a feeling, there is consciousness. Maybe this will help discernment: consciousness is the "space" where feelings/sensations/qualia arise. Any feeling of having a self or not arises in this space.