3 ms·

I have only published two (unimportant) articles in the Philosophy of Mind about computationalism, so I'm certainly not an expert on this, but from what I gathe

I have only published two (unimportant) articles in the Philosophy of Mind about computationalism, so I'm certainly not an expert on this, but from what I gather from colleagues in philosophy who work in this area, the problem with "consciousness" is that everybody defines the notion differently. Maybe there is some convergence on some soft criteria, but these are loose and in the end there is no unified, agreed upon definition or way to measure consciousness. IMHO, that makes a meaningful discussion difficult. Probably most ways of looking at consciousness don't depend on language - consciousness does not even imply self-consciousness, so it's not easy to see why it should. However, it shouldn't be hard to make a philosophical case for a dependence, too. In the end, it's questionable whether any of those theories are empirically testable. That's my impression, though admittedly I'm not really working in that area.

denton-scratch 7y ago
"everybody defines the notion differently" As I see it, the problem is that everyone knows what consciousness is - in a sense, it's the only thing they can know, it's direct experience. But it's impossible to inspect the consciousness of someone else; so scientists have trouble with the word, because verifiability. So "scientists" (I mean those who advocate a scientific approach) tend to prefer the idea that consciousness is an "emergent phenomenon", rather than something fundamental; and that acts of will really follow an action, rather than causing it. The article touches on Buddhist philosophy. Some Buddhists do indeed take the view that consciousness is something fundamental, that really exists. I find it really hard to talk about this subject. I have a very strong conviction that consciousness is real and fundamental, because, well, it's all I've got, at the end of the day. But if consciousness is fundamental, then all that other stuff is secondary. There are schools of Buddhist philosophy that claim that all that secondary stuff is literally created by consciousness. But my very consciousness constantly provides me with very convincing evidence that all that secondary stuff is in fact fundamental. So who's kidding who? One reason it's good to play with this kind of stuff is that it makes you less certain of anything!
- mercer 7y ago
  My impression is that the Buddhist view, at least from a zen perspective, is not so much telling you that all that secondary stuff is 'literally' created by consciousness, but rather that attachment to this idea is part of the problem. Being too attached to the idea that there is an objective reality outside of yourself is just as problematic as being attached to the idea that there is nothing outside of you subjective consciousness/experience. The truth, possibly impossible to find out, probably lies somewhere in between. The zen approach, as I understand it, is to focus on your own awareness of these two extremes, and to keep yourself from reifying either one. Instead, focus on your direct experience, on 'wu-wei', and consider these two extremes interesting perspectives that can help you on your path to 'naturalness'. Personally I find this philosophy maddeningly unclear and subjective, but it's been the most helpful in my life when it comes to 'happiness', or perhaps 'contentment'.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
    The idea that you can cleanly separate the self from the outside reality is probably the flawed bit. The in-between truth is that the self is intricately interlinked with the "outside" reality. Sensory deprivation tanks do really weird things to people's consciousness. The mind depends upon its inputs for proper functioning.

denton-scratch 7y ago

"everybody defines the notion differently" As I see it, the problem is that everyone knows what consciousness is - in a sense, it's the only thing they can know, it's direct experience. But it's impossible to inspect the consciousness of someone else; so scientists have trouble with the word, because verifiability. So "scientists" (I mean those who advocate a scientific approach) tend to prefer the idea that consciousness is an "emergent phenomenon", rather than something fundamental; and that acts of will really follow an action, rather than causing it. The article touches on Buddhist philosophy. Some Buddhists do indeed take the view that consciousness is something fundamental, that really exists. I find it really hard to talk about this subject. I have a very strong conviction that consciousness is real and fundamental, because, well, it's all I've got, at the end of the day. But if consciousness is fundamental, then all that other stuff is secondary. There are schools of Buddhist philosophy that claim that all that secondary stuff is literally created by consciousness. But my very consciousness constantly provides me with very convincing evidence that all that secondary stuff is in fact fundamental. So who's kidding who? One reason it's good to play with this kind of stuff is that it makes you less certain of anything!

mercer 7y ago
My impression is that the Buddhist view, at least from a zen perspective, is not so much telling you that all that secondary stuff is 'literally' created by consciousness, but rather that attachment to this idea is part of the problem. Being too attached to the idea that there is an objective reality outside of yourself is just as problematic as being attached to the idea that there is nothing outside of you subjective consciousness/experience. The truth, possibly impossible to find out, probably lies somewhere in between. The zen approach, as I understand it, is to focus on your own awareness of these two extremes, and to keep yourself from reifying either one. Instead, focus on your direct experience, on 'wu-wei', and consider these two extremes interesting perspectives that can help you on your path to 'naturalness'. Personally I find this philosophy maddeningly unclear and subjective, but it's been the most helpful in my life when it comes to 'happiness', or perhaps 'contentment'.
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago
  The idea that you can cleanly separate the self from the outside reality is probably the flawed bit. The in-between truth is that the self is intricately interlinked with the "outside" reality. Sensory deprivation tanks do really weird things to people's consciousness. The mind depends upon its inputs for proper functioning.