3 ms·
"Unending" is right. We'll not solve this because the problem is beyond reason.
by bencollier49 7y ago
"Unending" is right. We'll not solve this because the problem is beyond reason.
- michaelmrose 7y agoExplicate please
- CalRobert 7y agoAny adequate description of consciousness will break down in to "does this thing have an internal life of the mind, a subjective experience of reality, so to speak, or is it merely an extremely convincing automaton?" Of course, this applies to other people too if you want to be solipsistic about it.
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago> Any adequate description of consciousness will break down in to "does this thing have an internal life of the mind, a subjective experience of reality, so to speak, or is it merely an extremely convincing automaton?" Not so. Not all theories of consciousness allow for the existence of 'p-zombies'.
- michaelmrose 7y agoWithout dualism what is a p-zombie? Anything that related external events to an internal state that contained a model of self would be conscious. Where would there be a line between fake and real even if artificial?
- pygy_ 7y agoThe existence of the world, and of myself as a subjective being, are beyond reason. Understanding how either work provided they exist isn’t a priori unsolvable.
- shrimpx 7y agoA core challenge is to grasp your own subjectivity/qualia/mind. If you can grasp it then you can write it down in some form. But the tough part is that "grasping" is a thought production. So how can a specific thought production represent the whole functioning of thought? And if it's not a thought production how can it be 'understanding'? This is where the mystics come in, who present us with a different definition of "understanding" which doesn't involve thought productions, as in an intuitive "getting it". That may well be, but it's useless for science and engineering. So I think we're limited to speculation, which may well be fine.