3 ms·

I don't find it too hard to accept the concept of "the universe as a well meaning entity". The only premise you need to accept in order to come to this conclusi

by kapv89 10y ago

I don't find it too hard to accept the concept of "the universe as a well meaning entity". The only premise you need to accept in order to come to this conclusion is to not view your consciousness as a unique snowflake. Imagine that a white blood cell in your body has a consciousness of its own, where it, in its own way does its job when needed, hangs out with its "co-workers", other white-blood-cells, and red-blood-cells etc. You are the "universe as a well meaning entity" for this cell in your body. Extending on this hypothesis, its not too hard to conclude that you can be a small part of a bigger, well meaning consciousness.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
FabHK 10y ago
That is pure speculation though, without any evidence whatsoever.
- CuriouslyC 10y ago
  Human consciousness isn't human, in fact it isn't even brain consciousness (since we aren't conscious of everything that goes on in our brains) but rather the property of some (comparatively) small number of neurons. Ultimately, this is just a system of coupled biochemical reactions. There isn't really a meaningful difference between a single cell and a small network of neurons in terms of specific biochemical reactions. The only difference is the magnitude of the system's complexity. This leaves you with two options: 1.) You can posit some blessed configuration of a biochemical system that magically produces awareness, a property separate from matter. Note that since our neurons are arranged quite differently, this blessed configuration must be quite general. 2.) You can assume that awareness is inherent in matter, and any difference between a group of neurons with coupled biochemistry and a cell with coupled biochemistry exists on a continuum. Thus, any difference in awareness between a neural network and a cell is likely to be one of resolution. If you think for a minute hopefully you'll realize that option #2 actually involves fewer assumptions.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    If we achieve consciousness in machines, would that affect your opinion? I feel it is consistent with my stance, that awareness is indeed a property of a configuration of (entirely unconscious) matter. The configuration is extremely specific in the sense that almost all possible configurations have no consciousness, but somewhat general in that there are still infinitely many configurations that do. I still stick to option #1. Similarly, it is the specific configuration of the sand/silicon in my computer that allows it to process information, not individual sand particles or silicon atoms (even though their specific properties make it possible).
    - CuriouslyC 10y ago
      How do you know computers don't experience their existence? We assume because they behave predictably that this indicates they are unaware automata, but assume I asked you if you would like me to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. You would answer no with extremely high probability. Just because your answer is predictable doesn't indicate that there is no awareness behind it. In fact, there is almost certainly something that it is "like" to be a tightly coupled system of transistors. Of course, that experience is undoubtedly very different from ours. Part of the problem is that consciousness is a nebulous term that conflates awareness, self-awareness and intelligence. Specifically, I'm only speaking of awareness here. Also, when sand undergoes chemical reactions, how do you know that isn't a simple form of information processing?
      - FabHK 10y ago
        Agreed on the predictability. In fact, I'm a bit of compatibilist, i.e. subscribing to the notion that free will and determinism are compatible. And I've seen the argument being made that consciousness is fundamental and prior to anything else (Chalmers? Don't recall.) But I disagree for now, and I think awareness is an emergent property dependent on various pre-conditions (like perception, a model of self, possibly "embodied cognition" (not sure about that), etc.), and it's absurd to speak of a few atoms having awareness. (With modern computers, we might be getting there at some point...)

by kapv89 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

FabHK 10y ago

That is pure speculation though, without any evidence whatsoever.

CuriouslyC 10y ago
Human consciousness isn't human, in fact it isn't even brain consciousness (since we aren't conscious of everything that goes on in our brains) but rather the property of some (comparatively) small number of neurons. Ultimately, this is just a system of coupled biochemical reactions. There isn't really a meaningful difference between a single cell and a small network of neurons in terms of specific biochemical reactions. The only difference is the magnitude of the system's complexity. This leaves you with two options: 1.) You can posit some blessed configuration of a biochemical system that magically produces awareness, a property separate from matter. Note that since our neurons are arranged quite differently, this blessed configuration must be quite general. 2.) You can assume that awareness is inherent in matter, and any difference between a group of neurons with coupled biochemistry and a cell with coupled biochemistry exists on a continuum. Thus, any difference in awareness between a neural network and a cell is likely to be one of resolution. If you think for a minute hopefully you'll realize that option #2 actually involves fewer assumptions.
- FabHK 10y ago
  If we achieve consciousness in machines, would that affect your opinion? I feel it is consistent with my stance, that awareness is indeed a property of a configuration of (entirely unconscious) matter. The configuration is extremely specific in the sense that almost all possible configurations have no consciousness, but somewhat general in that there are still infinitely many configurations that do. I still stick to option #1. Similarly, it is the specific configuration of the sand/silicon in my computer that allows it to process information, not individual sand particles or silicon atoms (even though their specific properties make it possible).
  - CuriouslyC 10y ago
    How do you know computers don't experience their existence? We assume because they behave predictably that this indicates they are unaware automata, but assume I asked you if you would like me to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. You would answer no with extremely high probability. Just because your answer is predictable doesn't indicate that there is no awareness behind it. In fact, there is almost certainly something that it is "like" to be a tightly coupled system of transistors. Of course, that experience is undoubtedly very different from ours. Part of the problem is that consciousness is a nebulous term that conflates awareness, self-awareness and intelligence. Specifically, I'm only speaking of awareness here. Also, when sand undergoes chemical reactions, how do you know that isn't a simple form of information processing?
    - FabHK 10y ago
      Agreed on the predictability. In fact, I'm a bit of compatibilist, i.e. subscribing to the notion that free will and determinism are compatible. And I've seen the argument being made that consciousness is fundamental and prior to anything else (Chalmers? Don't recall.) But I disagree for now, and I think awareness is an emergent property dependent on various pre-conditions (like perception, a model of self, possibly "embodied cognition" (not sure about that), etc.), and it's absurd to speak of a few atoms having awareness. (With modern computers, we might be getting there at some point...)