4 ms·

The article, and the parent comment seek to gain some understanding of consciousness by exploration of subjective perspectives - both our own and that of the be

The article, and the parent comment seek to gain some understanding of consciousness by exploration of subjective perspectives - both our own and that of the bee's. Your statements merely assert that you view consciousness from the outside, 'objective' perspective. How does this contribute to the conversation? Are you saying that subjective perspectives on consciousness do not exist and/or are an illusion? Or that they are irrelevant (maybe b/c you believe free will does not exist)? Or that it's useless to study consciousness from a subjective perspective? 'humans just produce outputs for a given set of inputs' sounds like one of the axioms of the behaviorist school of psychology, which eliminated all concepts of internal states to concentrate solely on stimulus (inputs) and response (outputs). While it has proven useful for the treatment of some kinds of pathological behavior, it has fallen out of favor as a tool to study consciousness - not a big surprise, as the whole enterprise elides the concept of consciousness entirely.

callesgg 9y ago
The article, and the parent comment seek to gain some understanding of consciousness by exploration of subjective perspectives - both our own and that of the bee's. Your statements merely assert that you view consciousness from the outside, 'objective' perspective. How does this contribute to the conversation? Yes, you do have a good point. I was mainly just expressing how i thought about the issue, maybe putting some light on other parts of the equation. Maybe b/c you believe free will does not exist? For that you need to define free will. Essentially the free will question comes down to, do you believe in magic, yes or no. I don't believe in magic and therefore i don't believe in that type of free will. The only thing that determines how you will react to a certain input is all the pervious input you have had in your life and your genes(aka starting position). Or that it's useless to study consciousness from a subjective perspective? No not useless. Consciousness is not a total illusion, it is simply not what people seam to think what it is. My Consciousness seam to think it is a human, but in reality it is a neural network located in a humans head. So one illusion is that consciousness seam to think it is something that it is definitely not.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

callesgg 9y ago

The article, and the parent comment seek to gain some understanding of consciousness by exploration of subjective perspectives - both our own and that of the bee's. Your statements merely assert that you view consciousness from the outside, 'objective' perspective. How does this contribute to the conversation? Yes, you do have a good point. I was mainly just expressing how i thought about the issue, maybe putting some light on other parts of the equation. Maybe b/c you believe free will does not exist? For that you need to define free will. Essentially the free will question comes down to, do you believe in magic, yes or no. I don't believe in magic and therefore i don't believe in that type of free will. The only thing that determines how you will react to a certain input is all the pervious input you have had in your life and your genes(aka starting position). Or that it's useless to study consciousness from a subjective perspective? No not useless. Consciousness is not a total illusion, it is simply not what people seam to think what it is. My Consciousness seam to think it is a human, but in reality it is a neural network located in a humans head. So one illusion is that consciousness seam to think it is something that it is definitely not.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]