6 ms·

> Another possibility is that the consciousness of the electrons is just following the usual laws of physics, but also it would be equivalent to have non consci

> Another possibility is that the consciousness of the electrons is just following the usual laws of physics, but also it would be equivalent to have non conscious electrons So I think this is where the disagreement happens. You are following the laws of physics, but I wouldn't say that you're not conscious. Notably, we're talking about "consciousness" and not "free will", which is what I think you're actually arguing against for the electron.

gus_massa 8y ago
The disagreement is if "the elections are conscious" means anything at all. If you extend the definition of conscious for humans (whatever it means) to an extended definition that includes electrons, and the extended definition of conscious electron is "they just follow the (current) laws of physics", then the extended definition is meaningless. Everything is conscious in it's own way, and this doesn't give a cue about what human consciousness is. For a similar fuzzy defined term, let's pick "alive". Humans are alive (when they are not dead). Electrons are not alive. There is an arbitrary threshold in the middle, but the current guess is that there is no magical part in being alive. From electrons to humans, we all follow the laws of Physics. You can redefine alive, so an electron is alive by following the (current) laws of Physics. But now being alive is a meaningless term, because everything is alive in its own way.
- Svettie 8y ago
  I really think you nailed it with this analogy, and I think I can better understand your position and the disagreement. Let me extend this analogy to clarify what I mean then. If we agree that "alive" simply arises from ever more complicated chemical processes, and that we've specified an arbitrary line somewhere to give the term meaning, then that's fine. But it no longer makes sense to ask questions like "why are we alive?" or "at what point does something go from being just chemistry to being alive?". Because these answers are implicit in the definition itself. Yes, "alive" still has meaning but these questions don't have meaningful answers. Now in the case of "consciousness", I think that it might be much the same way. I think we've overloaded and conflated the term with different concepts which gives rise to resistance. Let's call the supposed fundamental property "experience" instead, and say that this is what the electron has. Then your "human consciousness" becomes what arises from that "experience" property overlayed onto your body as a chemical system. And this might seem useless, but I think it's not. The main mystery, which is "how am I here experiencing this?" Is answered by: this "experience", which seems so special to us and we assume we're the only ones that have it, is just the default of everything in the universe, and the subjective part of it is in the systems where the particular experience manifests. So with this view, the question: "what gives me consciousness but not an ant?" Reduces to the same arbitrary distinction like we've said for being "alive": it's just your arbitrary definition of it, and these questions might not have any deeper answers. And I think this perspective is counterintuitive for a lot of people and that's what leads to the intense belief that the questions must have meaningful answers, because we think we're the only stuff in the universe with "experience". For me, once I get a sense for what goes into that "experience", of being there and feeling like something inside my head, I don't have much mystery in the other stuff. For instance, I'm not concerned about equating "consciousness" to: "I think therefore I am" that's just my "experience" overlayed onto the circuitry of my brain. And I find that I disagree with Descartes. "I am" even if I can't "think", I just wouldn't be able to self-reflect about it, and those are different things.

gus_massa 8y ago

The disagreement is if "the elections are conscious" means anything at all. If you extend the definition of conscious for humans (whatever it means) to an extended definition that includes electrons, and the extended definition of conscious electron is "they just follow the (current) laws of physics", then the extended definition is meaningless. Everything is conscious in it's own way, and this doesn't give a cue about what human consciousness is. For a similar fuzzy defined term, let's pick "alive". Humans are alive (when they are not dead). Electrons are not alive. There is an arbitrary threshold in the middle, but the current guess is that there is no magical part in being alive. From electrons to humans, we all follow the laws of Physics. You can redefine alive, so an electron is alive by following the (current) laws of Physics. But now being alive is a meaningless term, because everything is alive in its own way.

Svettie 8y ago
I really think you nailed it with this analogy, and I think I can better understand your position and the disagreement. Let me extend this analogy to clarify what I mean then. If we agree that "alive" simply arises from ever more complicated chemical processes, and that we've specified an arbitrary line somewhere to give the term meaning, then that's fine. But it no longer makes sense to ask questions like "why are we alive?" or "at what point does something go from being just chemistry to being alive?". Because these answers are implicit in the definition itself. Yes, "alive" still has meaning but these questions don't have meaningful answers. Now in the case of "consciousness", I think that it might be much the same way. I think we've overloaded and conflated the term with different concepts which gives rise to resistance. Let's call the supposed fundamental property "experience" instead, and say that this is what the electron has. Then your "human consciousness" becomes what arises from that "experience" property overlayed onto your body as a chemical system. And this might seem useless, but I think it's not. The main mystery, which is "how am I here experiencing this?" Is answered by: this "experience", which seems so special to us and we assume we're the only ones that have it, is just the default of everything in the universe, and the subjective part of it is in the systems where the particular experience manifests. So with this view, the question: "what gives me consciousness but not an ant?" Reduces to the same arbitrary distinction like we've said for being "alive": it's just your arbitrary definition of it, and these questions might not have any deeper answers. And I think this perspective is counterintuitive for a lot of people and that's what leads to the intense belief that the questions must have meaningful answers, because we think we're the only stuff in the universe with "experience". For me, once I get a sense for what goes into that "experience", of being there and feeling like something inside my head, I don't have much mystery in the other stuff. For instance, I'm not concerned about equating "consciousness" to: "I think therefore I am" that's just my "experience" overlayed onto the circuitry of my brain. And I find that I disagree with Descartes. "I am" even if I can't "think", I just wouldn't be able to self-reflect about it, and those are different things.