4 ms·
> If we can't even get a solid consensus on what consciousness That is what the damn problem is. This is like saying since we don't understand gravity full, w
by cscurmudgeon 10y ago
> If we can't even get a solid consensus on what consciousness
That is what the damn problem is.
This is like saying since we don't understand gravity full, we should not study it.
- monocasa 10y agoWe come come up with a test that detects the presence of gravity. Can we do the same with consciousness?
- lioeters 10y agoThat's an interesting question, and I think it reveals something about the difficulty of studying consciousness strictly in a "scientific" way, i.e., based on experimental results, empirical evidence, falsifiability, reproducibility.. How can we test the existence of a wholly subjective/interior experience? This seems to relate to, for example, if it's possible to measure and quantify pain (or pleasure I suppose) objectively.
- maverick_iceman 10y agoWe understand gravity very well. General relativity is a beautiful and highly tested theory of gravity.
- cscurmudgeon 10y agoWe understand it very well but not completely! https://beyond.asu.edu/workshop/unsolved-problems-gravity https://beyond.asu.edu/workshop/unsolved-problems-gravity We don't go around declaring that "No talk about gravity till we know everything about it and have solved all open problems."
- monktastic1 10y agoNot really. With gravity, we always basically agreed on what we were trying to explain: why things fall or attract each other. With consciousness, we don't have anything much better than "why is it _like something_ to be conscious?" Even if we agree on such a definition, what do we do with it? And the more objective our definition ("why do organisms respond to their environment?") the further we get from the thing we seek to explain.