4 ms·

Even if your brain is ruled by Bayesian statistics, that doesn't make YOU a bayesian neural network, or even tell us much about identity at all (that would be t

by LPTS 18y ago

Even if your brain is ruled by Bayesian statistics, that doesn't make YOU a bayesian neural network, or even tell us much about identity at all (that would be to confuse the hard and easy problems of consciousness). But your point about a bayesian network not having to understand other bayesian networks stands, and is the right answer to the guy you responded too.

gnaritas 18y ago
You're correct, however, we still haven't defined what you actually is yet. Conscienceless could merely be an illusion or as Jeff Hawkins says, it could merely be what it feels like to have a neocortex. I do reject the idea that conscienceless is anything more than the byproduct of the physical process of the brain, of course, I don't think that's what you're implying, I hope.
- LPTS 18y ago
  I didn't mean to imply anything about my beliefs. I have a more general atheoretic attitude towards it. My belief could be formalized "For any person with a set of beliefs about consciousness, their beliefs are wrong, and they are not justified in holding them." You said: "I do reject the idea that conscienceless is anything more than the byproduct of the physical process of the brain, of course, I don't think that's what you're implying, I hope." This is exactly like saying: "I reject the idea that final digits of pi is anything more than the byproduct of the physical processes in my computer's calculator program" I don't think actually I implied not-physicalism, but I would be happy to endorse it. The idea that consciousness is illusory relates to high functioning autism in people who develop the theories in a complicated way. Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, had a very autistic picture theory of language that gave way to a non-autistic theory as he got older. For very intelligent people who are blind to other minds, studying consciousness is very important, because, to them, it seems like the most logical way to understand people. I don't mean this as criticism of intelligent people with autism. But, relying on these people to understand consciousness is like relying on a colorblind person who has mastered scientific and mathematical models of analyzing wavelengths of light to explain color as an artist experiences it.
  - cperciva 18y ago
    This is exactly like saying: "I reject the idea that final digits of pi is anything more than the byproduct of the physical processes in my computer's calculator program" I reject the idea that pi has any final digits. :-)
    - LPTS 18y ago
      Well, that's exactly the point. I cribbed that line from a poem I wrote: Trying to find / the explanation of why we are conscious / in patterns in the brain / is like / trying to find / the last digit of pi / in the circuitry of a scientific calculator

by LPTS 18y ago

gnaritas 18y ago

You're correct, however, we still haven't defined what you actually is yet. Conscienceless could merely be an illusion or as Jeff Hawkins says, it could merely be what it feels like to have a neocortex. I do reject the idea that conscienceless is anything more than the byproduct of the physical process of the brain, of course, I don't think that's what you're implying, I hope.

LPTS 18y ago
I didn't mean to imply anything about my beliefs. I have a more general atheoretic attitude towards it. My belief could be formalized "For any person with a set of beliefs about consciousness, their beliefs are wrong, and they are not justified in holding them." You said: "I do reject the idea that conscienceless is anything more than the byproduct of the physical process of the brain, of course, I don't think that's what you're implying, I hope." This is exactly like saying: "I reject the idea that final digits of pi is anything more than the byproduct of the physical processes in my computer's calculator program" I don't think actually I implied not-physicalism, but I would be happy to endorse it. The idea that consciousness is illusory relates to high functioning autism in people who develop the theories in a complicated way. Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, had a very autistic picture theory of language that gave way to a non-autistic theory as he got older. For very intelligent people who are blind to other minds, studying consciousness is very important, because, to them, it seems like the most logical way to understand people. I don't mean this as criticism of intelligent people with autism. But, relying on these people to understand consciousness is like relying on a colorblind person who has mastered scientific and mathematical models of analyzing wavelengths of light to explain color as an artist experiences it.
- cperciva 18y ago
  This is exactly like saying: "I reject the idea that final digits of pi is anything more than the byproduct of the physical processes in my computer's calculator program" I reject the idea that pi has any final digits. :-)
  - LPTS 18y ago
    Well, that's exactly the point. I cribbed that line from a poem I wrote: Trying to find / the explanation of why we are conscious / in patterns in the brain / is like / trying to find / the last digit of pi / in the circuitry of a scientific calculator