4 ms·

Defining "mind" or "consciousness" seems like a backwards effort. I would think that the natural progression would be that there is an observed concept which th

by zdean 10y ago

Defining "mind" or "consciousness" seems like a backwards effort. I would think that the natural progression would be that there is an observed concept which then needs a label (ie, I observe a bunch of tallish greenish things that share a large number of similarities and I label them "tree"). In this case, I would think that there was some observed phenomenon with observable/definable traits that we would then label as "mind" or "consciousness". However, in these cases, it feels as though we came up with the label and are now in search of a concept to fit them.

xtian 10y ago
The observed phenomena are the perception, reasoning, and labeling processes you describe. The word "consciousness" refers to the means by which those processes and many others are interconnected.
pessimizer 10y ago
You're missing the point. We know that angels are real because we observe their effects on the world around us. The important thing for us to do as scientists is to figure out how angels operate on everything, simultaneously, without leaving any evidence. A thought experiment that will give us unprecedented insight into their function would be to imagine how small an angel could physically get while maintaining all of the properties they are known to have. It would be very, very small, so the best unit to calculate it with might be the maximum density of angels of theorized types, qualities, and distributions within some arbitrarily small area. It'll be the greatest discovery since aether, and has the potential to yield methods for us to wield the power of angels, which would completely disrupt health care, immersive gaming, social multimedia and national defense. Just kidding. Theory-theory is all about discovering the definition of words. It rests entirely on the axiom that when people talk about their motivations and the motivations of other people, they're talking about real objects and real processes. After we assume we're already right and have always been right, all that's left is to locate and quantify "jealousy," and invent ways to create, destroy, and control it. "Jealousy," whatever we may determine that is, is axiomatic before being defined. I ambiguously like the article, just in that it reminds the reader that there's no clear way to detach any physical mind from anything else in the world without making it into a soul. The important thing about you is not that there's introspective rationalizations running on a verbalized loop in your head (and in any reaction requiring speed, slightly later than the action they pretend to explain), but why you can hear the ones running in your head so much louder than you can hear the ones running in someone else's head. It's a proximity problem, not a problem of "consciousness" or "mind." Why am I so much closer to me than I am to you? I have to rely on sounds and visual indications to act upon, and to get feedback from, your nervous system. Why am I in my head and not yours? If I am not this introspective loop; if I were in your head, wouldn't I be in your introspection? If I have no agency, and my behavior and the content of my introspection are an epiphenomenon of the relationship of my nervous system and environment, rather then something that I initiate from wherever I connect with the physical world - am I unitary? Could there be countless me's in my own head observing (living without acting) my life from my perspective? It's far safer to define consciousness or mind as the thing that separates humans from meat, then spend a lot of time studying humans and meat and comparing the two. It's also useful in that you can declare any behavior that you don't like in humans a problem with their meat, or declare some people more meat than human. You'll never be wrong.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mcguire 10y ago
I find it plausible to say that something identifiable by the term "I" exists.

by zdean 10y ago

xtian 10y ago

The observed phenomena are the perception, reasoning, and labeling processes you describe. The word "consciousness" refers to the means by which those processes and many others are interconnected.

pessimizer 10y ago

You're missing the point. We know that angels are real because we observe their effects on the world around us. The important thing for us to do as scientists is to figure out how angels operate on everything, simultaneously, without leaving any evidence. A thought experiment that will give us unprecedented insight into their function would be to imagine how small an angel could physically get while maintaining all of the properties they are known to have. It would be very, very small, so the best unit to calculate it with might be the maximum density of angels of theorized types, qualities, and distributions within some arbitrarily small area. It'll be the greatest discovery since aether, and has the potential to yield methods for us to wield the power of angels, which would completely disrupt health care, immersive gaming, social multimedia and national defense. Just kidding. Theory-theory is all about discovering the definition of words. It rests entirely on the axiom that when people talk about their motivations and the motivations of other people, they're talking about real objects and real processes. After we assume we're already right and have always been right, all that's left is to locate and quantify "jealousy," and invent ways to create, destroy, and control it. "Jealousy," whatever we may determine that is, is axiomatic before being defined. I ambiguously like the article, just in that it reminds the reader that there's no clear way to detach any physical mind from anything else in the world without making it into a soul. The important thing about you is not that there's introspective rationalizations running on a verbalized loop in your head (and in any reaction requiring speed, slightly later than the action they pretend to explain), but why you can hear the ones running in your head so much louder than you can hear the ones running in someone else's head. It's a proximity problem, not a problem of "consciousness" or "mind." Why am I so much closer to me than I am to you? I have to rely on sounds and visual indications to act upon, and to get feedback from, your nervous system. Why am I in my head and not yours? If I am not this introspective loop; if I were in your head, wouldn't I be in your introspection? If I have no agency, and my behavior and the content of my introspection are an epiphenomenon of the relationship of my nervous system and environment, rather then something that I initiate from wherever I connect with the physical world - am I unitary? Could there be countless me's in my own head observing (living without acting) my life from my perspective? It's far safer to define consciousness or mind as the thing that separates humans from meat, then spend a lot of time studying humans and meat and comparing the two. It's also useful in that you can declare any behavior that you don't like in humans a problem with their meat, or declare some people more meat than human. You'll never be wrong.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mcguire 10y ago

I find it plausible to say that something identifiable by the term "I" exists.