3 ms·

That's one reason why I've started using the term "interiority" to describe the bedrock "existence of a feeling of what it is like" phenomenon. It's the smalles

That's one reason why I've started using the term "interiority" to describe the bedrock "existence of a feeling of what it is like" phenomenon. It's the smallest word I can think of that still conveys the essence of the hard part of the hard problem. Put another way, I'm of the belief (and I think Chalmers and many others share it) that if you can demonstrate to me that C. Elegans feels itself wiggling around, and you can show me why it feels anything at all and why it feels this way vs that way, then you have solved the hard problem. I could take your technical specifications for basic interiority (the solution to the hard problem) and then give you human-level reflective consciousness in a few years given a handful of engineers and sufficiently powerful hardware. This isn't necessarily a popular opinion, though. I once read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" and was really frustrated that the author spent the entire book explaining how we became "conscious" by listening to one half of our brain talking to the other half. How much time did he spend trying to explain how there was anything doing the "hearing" to begin with? Nearly zero. Maddening.

naasking 10y ago
> That's one reason why I've started using the term "interiority" to describe the bedrock "existence of a feeling of what it is like" phenomenon. It's the smallest word I can think of that still conveys the essence of the hard part of the hard problem. A more widely used term is "subjectivity". > How much time did he spend trying to explain how there was anything doing the "hearing" to begin with? Nearly zero. Maddening. This seems like a common sentiment, but I'm not sure it's justified. You're already assuming the existence of a subject just because of an observation, but that needs justification. That belief is just an inference, a chain of thoughts sourced from a thought and yielding the final thought "I experienced X". The question is really whether that chain of inference is valid or fallacious, in which case subjectivity is an illusion. I suggest reading some scientific attempts to account for subjectivity [1]. Our approaches to consciousness amounts to marvelling at a pencil sitting in a glass of water [2] and trying to figure out how water seems able to break and reconstitute the pencil, when we should really be developing the theory of light refraction. Like biology did to vitalism, all this mysticism surrounding consciousness will soon just fade into history. [1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00... [2] http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/pix/refraction-of-pencil-in-cup-of-water_medium.jpg http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/pix/refraction-of-pencil-in-cup-o...

naasking 10y ago

> That's one reason why I've started using the term "interiority" to describe the bedrock "existence of a feeling of what it is like" phenomenon. It's the smallest word I can think of that still conveys the essence of the hard part of the hard problem. A more widely used term is "subjectivity". > How much time did he spend trying to explain how there was anything doing the "hearing" to begin with? Nearly zero. Maddening. This seems like a common sentiment, but I'm not sure it's justified. You're already assuming the existence of a subject just because of an observation, but that needs justification. That belief is just an inference, a chain of thoughts sourced from a thought and yielding the final thought "I experienced X". The question is really whether that chain of inference is valid or fallacious, in which case subjectivity is an illusion. I suggest reading some scientific attempts to account for subjectivity [1]. Our approaches to consciousness amounts to marvelling at a pencil sitting in a glass of water [2] and trying to figure out how water seems able to break and reconstitute the pencil, when we should really be developing the theory of light refraction. Like biology did to vitalism, all this mysticism surrounding consciousness will soon just fade into history. [1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00500/full http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00... [2] http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/pix/refraction-of-pencil-in-cup-of-water_medium.jpg http://etc.usf.edu/clippix/pix/refraction-of-pencil-in-cup-o...