7 ms·

I find the wording "detecting consciousness" problematic. They are not detecting consciousness as if they were detecting subatomic particles in a cloud chamber,

I find the wording "detecting consciousness" problematic. They are not detecting consciousness as if they were detecting subatomic particles in a cloud chamber, or pollutants in the water; they are just measuring some neural fireworks that they believe coincide in time with the reported subjective experiences of the patients. Then there's this: > The current most promising scientific theory of consciousness [...] is Integrated Information Theory (IIT). [...] IIT emphasizes the differentiated and integrated aspect of any subjective experience and postulates that the mechanism supporting conscious experience in the human brain’s neocortex must likewise incorporate these two attributes. I don't see any reason why the presumed features of our subjective experience should be "reflected" in the physical working of our brains.

westoncb 9y ago
There are two very different things both commonly referred to as consciousness. The first can easily be seen as a 'system' like any other one might study—it's basically the part of our brain that does self-awareness (monitors and reacts to 'lower-level' brain activity). The second usage is about accounting for the existence of qualia/immediate experience (the 'hard problem' of consciousness is reconciling what immediate experience is like with the fact that when we look in brains we only find neurons [basically a restatement of the classic mind-body problem in philosophy, but now with a more narrow/specific aspect of mind deemed problematic]). I assume the authors are aware of both definitions, but 'consciousness' sounds even more impressive than self-awareness, so...
erikpukinskis 9y ago
> I find the wording "detecting light" problematic. They are not detecting light, they are just measuring some pigment changes on a metal plate that they believe coincide in time with the reported subjective experiences of light.
- danidiaz 9y ago
  But in the case of light, we are detecting a physical thing that is related by causal chains to the change in pigments. The relationship between the subjective feeling of consciousness and the measured neural patterns doesn't seem to be of the same nature. When I see the color blue, does that "cause" anything in my brain?
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    Light is not physical, it is a subjective experience. It doesn't exist except in the mind. Photons, other various kinds of radiation, do seem to exist outside of minds.
    - justinpombrio 9y ago
      For those who missed it, erikpukinskis is demonstrating that danidiaz's argument proves too much: that is, it works just as well to prove that we can't detect light as consciousness. http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/
canjobear 9y ago
> I don't see any reason why the presumed features of our subjective experience should be "reflected" in the physical working of our brains. If subjective experience has absolutely no physical correlates then wouldn't that make it strictly supernatural? It's a coherent position, but it turns consciousness into an article of religious faith.
- kenning 9y ago
  Forget religion and consider that the only thing you know for sure is that you exist, because your subjective experience is occurring right now. The tendency of science is towards naturalism, to the point that anything else is considered nonsense, but who knows what's really happening?
  - lafar6502 9y ago
    Consciousness connects the symbols with real world, it’s the awareness by understanding abstract concepts and maintaining some model of reality. Without that you wouldn’t be more conscious than a thermometer. So maybe it’s just some self-referring logical model that is totally independent of physical world but at the same time needs the physical world to provide some hosting hardware
  - throwaway76025 9y ago
    You’re describing solipsism.
- montyf 9y ago
  Consciousness is supernatural and metaphysical by virtue of it existing outside the natural and physical world. This is true even if we could prove that some formations of matter correlated or even had a one-to-one relationship to consciousness. It's easy to see that the experience of, say, reading this post exists nowhere in this physical universe. In fact, consciousness is the only supernatural phenomenon that we know of, and we even have first-hand, moment-to-moment proof of it.
  - tensor 9y ago
pmezard 9y ago
Should it be reflected in our soul?
- taneq 9y ago
  Our what now? How would you tell?
naasking 9y ago
> I don't see any reason why the presumed features of our subjective experience should be "reflected" in the physical working of our brains. Except for our entire body of scientific knowledge, and the long, long history of presumption of human uniqueness that were repeatedly refuted. In 50 years, the specialness of human consciousness will join vitalism in the history of quaint ideas.

westoncb 9y ago

There are two very different things both commonly referred to as consciousness. The first can easily be seen as a 'system' like any other one might study—it's basically the part of our brain that does self-awareness (monitors and reacts to 'lower-level' brain activity). The second usage is about accounting for the existence of qualia/immediate experience (the 'hard problem' of consciousness is reconciling what immediate experience is like with the fact that when we look in brains we only find neurons [basically a restatement of the classic mind-body problem in philosophy, but now with a more narrow/specific aspect of mind deemed problematic]). I assume the authors are aware of both definitions, but 'consciousness' sounds even more impressive than self-awareness, so...

erikpukinskis 9y ago

> I find the wording "detecting light" problematic. They are not detecting light, they are just measuring some pigment changes on a metal plate that they believe coincide in time with the reported subjective experiences of light.

danidiaz 9y ago
But in the case of light, we are detecting a physical thing that is related by causal chains to the change in pigments. The relationship between the subjective feeling of consciousness and the measured neural patterns doesn't seem to be of the same nature. When I see the color blue, does that "cause" anything in my brain?
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Light is not physical, it is a subjective experience. It doesn't exist except in the mind. Photons, other various kinds of radiation, do seem to exist outside of minds.
  - justinpombrio 9y ago
    For those who missed it, erikpukinskis is demonstrating that danidiaz's argument proves too much: that is, it works just as well to prove that we can't detect light as consciousness. http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/04/13/proving-too-much/

canjobear 9y ago

> I don't see any reason why the presumed features of our subjective experience should be "reflected" in the physical working of our brains. If subjective experience has absolutely no physical correlates then wouldn't that make it strictly supernatural? It's a coherent position, but it turns consciousness into an article of religious faith.

kenning 9y ago
Forget religion and consider that the only thing you know for sure is that you exist, because your subjective experience is occurring right now. The tendency of science is towards naturalism, to the point that anything else is considered nonsense, but who knows what's really happening?
- lafar6502 9y ago
  Consciousness connects the symbols with real world, it’s the awareness by understanding abstract concepts and maintaining some model of reality. Without that you wouldn’t be more conscious than a thermometer. So maybe it’s just some self-referring logical model that is totally independent of physical world but at the same time needs the physical world to provide some hosting hardware
- throwaway76025 9y ago
  You’re describing solipsism.
montyf 9y ago
Consciousness is supernatural and metaphysical by virtue of it existing outside the natural and physical world. This is true even if we could prove that some formations of matter correlated or even had a one-to-one relationship to consciousness. It's easy to see that the experience of, say, reading this post exists nowhere in this physical universe. In fact, consciousness is the only supernatural phenomenon that we know of, and we even have first-hand, moment-to-moment proof of it.
- tensor 9y ago

pmezard 9y ago

Should it be reflected in our soul?

taneq 9y ago
Our what now? How would you tell?

naasking 9y ago

> I don't see any reason why the presumed features of our subjective experience should be "reflected" in the physical working of our brains. Except for our entire body of scientific knowledge, and the long, long history of presumption of human uniqueness that were repeatedly refuted. In 50 years, the specialness of human consciousness will join vitalism in the history of quaint ideas.