4 ms·

>fact is that the consciousness is still there. There is a small problem with this claim. Or, at least there is a problem if you happen to believe in popperia

>fact is that the consciousness is still there. There is a small problem with this claim. Or, at least there is a problem if you happen to believe in popperian philosophy of science that says that claims that are not falsifiable are non-scientific. Obviously, from popperian point of view that claim is about as unfalsifiable as is the claim that God created earth and everything on it. Which may be true or may be not, but the claim is not a claim in the scientific realm but in religious realm, and I would be a bit vary to consider claims in religious (or non-scientific if that is a bit less sensitive word) realm "facts". I mean, it feels obvious that I have conscience, but how do you prove or disprove that claim? I have no idea. It feels obvious that earth is flat, but there are ways to prove that wrong.

mistersquid 10y ago
Presence of consciousness is falsifiable, albeit indirectly and after the fact (unlike existence which is real time). Self-awareness/consciousness can verify its own falsifiability by using periods of unconsciousness such as dreamless sleep, fainting, etc. as evidence.
narag 10y ago
it feels obvious that I have conscience, but how do you prove or disprove that claim? Why do you need to prove the obvious? It feels obvious that earth is flat It doesn't if you climb a mountain or see a ship under the horizon. It's a very thin layer of "obviousness" that disappears with very little reasoning. There's nothing similar for consciousness, on the contrary every argument that has been tried against it feels terribly clumsy and artificial.
- otikik 10y ago
  The question already has uses. It is worth asking ourselves wether other animals are conscious. It is worth asking ourselves whether a human phoetus is conscious. And sooner or later we will need to ask ourselves wether machines are conscious.
  - narag 10y ago
    The first two questions are tricky. The third is really the reason we're reading about consciousness so often. But I'm not sure that questioning consciousness reality itself is so useful to replicate it.
amelius 10y ago
The fact that we are talking (in this physical world) about consciousness, gives me a strong indication that at least consciousness is interacting bi-directionally with physics (from a dualistic viewpoint), so it should fall in the realm of science. Of course, consciousness could be generated by physics alone, but then we would not be aware of it, so alternatively, consciousness could be generated by physics AND exist separately from it (as an observer), but this seems much more contrived.

mistersquid 10y ago

Presence of consciousness is falsifiable, albeit indirectly and after the fact (unlike existence which is real time). Self-awareness/consciousness can verify its own falsifiability by using periods of unconsciousness such as dreamless sleep, fainting, etc. as evidence.

narag 10y ago

it feels obvious that I have conscience, but how do you prove or disprove that claim? Why do you need to prove the obvious? It feels obvious that earth is flat It doesn't if you climb a mountain or see a ship under the horizon. It's a very thin layer of "obviousness" that disappears with very little reasoning. There's nothing similar for consciousness, on the contrary every argument that has been tried against it feels terribly clumsy and artificial.

otikik 10y ago
The question already has uses. It is worth asking ourselves wether other animals are conscious. It is worth asking ourselves whether a human phoetus is conscious. And sooner or later we will need to ask ourselves wether machines are conscious.
- narag 10y ago
  The first two questions are tricky. The third is really the reason we're reading about consciousness so often. But I'm not sure that questioning consciousness reality itself is so useful to replicate it.

amelius 10y ago

The fact that we are talking (in this physical world) about consciousness, gives me a strong indication that at least consciousness is interacting bi-directionally with physics (from a dualistic viewpoint), so it should fall in the realm of science. Of course, consciousness could be generated by physics alone, but then we would not be aware of it, so alternatively, consciousness could be generated by physics AND exist separately from it (as an observer), but this seems much more contrived.