6 ms·

"Rather than consciousness arising when non-conscious matter behaves a particular way, is it possible that consciousness is an intrinsic property of matter—that

"Rather than consciousness arising when non-conscious matter behaves a particular way, is it possible that consciousness is an intrinsic property of matter—that it was there all along?" Umm, really? Sounds nice and touchy-feely new agey, but, I'm saying no. More likely you just haven't tried to define consciousness clearly and non-circularly, and when you do, it just kind of goes away as a concept. If you can tell me, in any sort of scientific terms, why a self driving car isn't conscious but a human is, maybe we can get somewhere.

erikpukinskis 7y ago
How is this circular? Physics has the notion of an observer, which is inherent to all matter. This is just saying observer effects happen everywhere all the time and your skull is just concentrating it.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  "Observer" notion from physics (does not matter if we are talking about neutonian or QM or whatever) have nothing to do with consciousness. "Observer" in physics is just a description of a certain point of view within the system. The connection of that to consciousness is usually done by popular quasi-philosophy books loosely based on physics and using some of the same terms, they do not come from the physics itself.
  - Causality1 7y ago
    Correct. "Observer" is just shorthand for "probability collapsing interaction".
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Saying there is no connection is an unfalsifiable claim, so you’ve departed the realm of science with that one.
    - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
      What I mean is, physics makes no claims about any such connection. I could have been more clear. People are free to explore any connection or lack thereof, but there isn't any claims to that coming from mainstream physics.
      - erikpukinskis 7y ago
        Have you done a literature review? Have you searched for quantum effects and cognition in the literature?
        Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
        Well yeah, hence my statement. The word "observer" when used in physics usually refers to the instrumental measurement process, not to perception by a consciousness/human. There are of course outliers, scientists that will make the draw, but they are in a miniscule minority. There are also thought experiments that are common that will talk about this, but they almost always used in order to actually demonstrate the non-fitness of this line of reasoning for physical sciences. The people who make these claims are usually woo-woo writers who make money by writing popular culture books related to a subset of quantum mechanics phenomena and to a limited understanding thereof. This shouldn't be too hard to see either when you understand that consciousness is not well-defined yet by mainstream science, and so why would it study it using the well-defined methods like physics? That if anything would lead to unfalsifiable hypotheses, and mainstream physics luckily doesn't indulge in that so often.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  "Physics has the notion of an observer, which is inherent to all matter." I have no idea what you mean by this. As for circular, I saying it is impossible to define consciousness in a way that excludes man made machines (is my computer conscious because it is aware of other similar machines on the network, as well as its own place in the network? Is a self driving car conscious because it is aware of its position in space relative to other cars?), without simply using other words that have similar meaning. People define "conscious" using words like "aware" or "feel" or "think", while being quick to assume that all words don't apply to machines. But they won't explain why not. This goes into detail about circularity of definitions: http://www.karmatics.com/docs/dictionary.html http://www.karmatics.com/docs/dictionary.html
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    Why would I exclude man made machines?
visarga 7y ago
> More likely you just haven't tried to define consciousness clearly and non-circularly, and when you do, it just kind of goes away as a concept. Let me try: consciousness is that which makes you get up in the morning and get something to eat. In general, it's what makes you keep being alive in the complex world, reacting to the changes, adapting for survival. As a human survival entails being part of the human society and culture. This is a concrete, non-metaphysical definition. Why survival? It's the only self-reliant, self affirming reason. If you think I am too reductive, maybe you haven't considered the wonderful complexities of reinforcement learning and genetic evolution. There is just as much or more to admire in them as in traditional spirituality and religion. But they have the advantage of being practical and not presupposing things that cannot be seen, including Chalmer's panpsychism and/or dualism. PS: seems like I hit a nerve, but I am not sorry. Consciousness == eating is my way of crashing the high flying palace of consciousness philosophy into the dirt of the concrete world. Philosophers (armchair or not) need to take heed at the current scientific developments.
- dilyevsky 7y ago
  So if i program sdc to drive itself to a charging station when it’s low on battery it’s conscious now?
  - visarga 7y ago
    Does the sdc make little sdc's, based just on nature? The reproductive organs of technology are us, people.
    - dilyevsky 7y ago
      Since i am “nature” then yea
      - visarga 7y ago
        if you consider yourself "nature", then the car must be alive, but only when you're around and keep it multiplying
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
carapace 7y ago
You can't define consciousness, it's not a concept. It has no qualities, no parts, no shape, no sides nor extent. The only reason it's not utterly meaningless to talk about is your own subjective awareness. "Consciousness", "you", "here", and "now" are all synonyms.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  Not sure what you mean by "it's not a concept." I certainly don't see how "you", "here" and "now" are synonyms of consciousness, nor is the use of the terms indicative of consciousness. Two simple machines that communicate with one another for some useful purpose could meaningfully and usefully use those terms (or equivalent symbols or codes), but that wouldn't make them conscious by the way most people use the word. Not seeing that at all, sorry. And certainly the words aren't synonyms "consciousness," in that you could replace the word "consciousness" with "you" (etc)
  - carapace 7y ago
    > Not sure what you mean by "it's not a concept." You said it yourself above, when you try to define consciousness clearly and non-circularly it just kind of goes away as a concept. That's because it's the inconceivable medium of concepts. Conceptualizing consciousness is like trying to play silence on an instrument. You can't do it except by leaving it alone. > I certainly don't see how "you", "here" and "now" are synonyms of consciousness, nor is the use of the terms indicative of consciousness. Well, work on it for a while. You are that which is conscious. Everything else is content. You are always "here" and it is always "now". Subjective awareness. Even in dreams "you" are always "here" and it is always "now". Have you ever not been here? Or existed at a time that isn't now? It's not something you can think out or solve, it's a matter of perception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self-enquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self-enquiry
    - robbrown451 7y ago
      Ok well "you", "here", and "now" have meanings that don't depend on consciousness at all. Two software programs on a network could use the terms quite meaningfully. For instance, instead of sending the current timestamp, it could send the message "now" as a shorthand for it. Instead of sending a name/network id of the machine it is communicating with, it could send the message "you" as shorthand for it. Instead of sending the latitude and longitude of the location of where it is, it could send "here" as shorthand for "where you already know I am". There are advantages and disadvantages to this (for instance, network latency could affect the meaning of "now" vs. a timestamp). If you are going to say it's "not a concept" you probably shouldn't then say it is synonomous with these other things. I would argue that it IS a concept, but it becomes an incoherent concept when analyzed closely. Or it becomes a very generalizable concept, one that applies perfectly well to manmade things like self driving cars and maybe even thermostats.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

erikpukinskis 7y ago

How is this circular? Physics has the notion of an observer, which is inherent to all matter. This is just saying observer effects happen everywhere all the time and your skull is just concentrating it.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
"Observer" notion from physics (does not matter if we are talking about neutonian or QM or whatever) have nothing to do with consciousness. "Observer" in physics is just a description of a certain point of view within the system. The connection of that to consciousness is usually done by popular quasi-philosophy books loosely based on physics and using some of the same terms, they do not come from the physics itself.
- Causality1 7y ago
  Correct. "Observer" is just shorthand for "probability collapsing interaction".
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Saying there is no connection is an unfalsifiable claim, so you’ve departed the realm of science with that one.
  - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    What I mean is, physics makes no claims about any such connection. I could have been more clear. People are free to explore any connection or lack thereof, but there isn't any claims to that coming from mainstream physics.
    - erikpukinskis 7y ago
      Have you done a literature review? Have you searched for quantum effects and cognition in the literature?
      - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
        Well yeah, hence my statement. The word "observer" when used in physics usually refers to the instrumental measurement process, not to perception by a consciousness/human. There are of course outliers, scientists that will make the draw, but they are in a miniscule minority. There are also thought experiments that are common that will talk about this, but they almost always used in order to actually demonstrate the non-fitness of this line of reasoning for physical sciences. The people who make these claims are usually woo-woo writers who make money by writing popular culture books related to a subset of quantum mechanics phenomena and to a limited understanding thereof. This shouldn't be too hard to see either when you understand that consciousness is not well-defined yet by mainstream science, and so why would it study it using the well-defined methods like physics? That if anything would lead to unfalsifiable hypotheses, and mainstream physics luckily doesn't indulge in that so often.
robbrown451 7y ago
"Physics has the notion of an observer, which is inherent to all matter." I have no idea what you mean by this. As for circular, I saying it is impossible to define consciousness in a way that excludes man made machines (is my computer conscious because it is aware of other similar machines on the network, as well as its own place in the network? Is a self driving car conscious because it is aware of its position in space relative to other cars?), without simply using other words that have similar meaning. People define "conscious" using words like "aware" or "feel" or "think", while being quick to assume that all words don't apply to machines. But they won't explain why not. This goes into detail about circularity of definitions: http://www.karmatics.com/docs/dictionary.html http://www.karmatics.com/docs/dictionary.html
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  Why would I exclude man made machines?

visarga 7y ago

> More likely you just haven't tried to define consciousness clearly and non-circularly, and when you do, it just kind of goes away as a concept. Let me try: consciousness is that which makes you get up in the morning and get something to eat. In general, it's what makes you keep being alive in the complex world, reacting to the changes, adapting for survival. As a human survival entails being part of the human society and culture. This is a concrete, non-metaphysical definition. Why survival? It's the only self-reliant, self affirming reason. If you think I am too reductive, maybe you haven't considered the wonderful complexities of reinforcement learning and genetic evolution. There is just as much or more to admire in them as in traditional spirituality and religion. But they have the advantage of being practical and not presupposing things that cannot be seen, including Chalmer's panpsychism and/or dualism. PS: seems like I hit a nerve, but I am not sorry. Consciousness == eating is my way of crashing the high flying palace of consciousness philosophy into the dirt of the concrete world. Philosophers (armchair or not) need to take heed at the current scientific developments.

dilyevsky 7y ago
So if i program sdc to drive itself to a charging station when it’s low on battery it’s conscious now?
- visarga 7y ago
  Does the sdc make little sdc's, based just on nature? The reproductive organs of technology are us, people.
  - dilyevsky 7y ago
    Since i am “nature” then yea
    - visarga 7y ago
      if you consider yourself "nature", then the car must be alive, but only when you're around and keep it multiplying

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

carapace 7y ago

You can't define consciousness, it's not a concept. It has no qualities, no parts, no shape, no sides nor extent. The only reason it's not utterly meaningless to talk about is your own subjective awareness. "Consciousness", "you", "here", and "now" are all synonyms.

robbrown451 7y ago
Not sure what you mean by "it's not a concept." I certainly don't see how "you", "here" and "now" are synonyms of consciousness, nor is the use of the terms indicative of consciousness. Two simple machines that communicate with one another for some useful purpose could meaningfully and usefully use those terms (or equivalent symbols or codes), but that wouldn't make them conscious by the way most people use the word. Not seeing that at all, sorry. And certainly the words aren't synonyms "consciousness," in that you could replace the word "consciousness" with "you" (etc)
- carapace 7y ago
  > Not sure what you mean by "it's not a concept." You said it yourself above, when you try to define consciousness clearly and non-circularly it just kind of goes away as a concept. That's because it's the inconceivable medium of concepts. Conceptualizing consciousness is like trying to play silence on an instrument. You can't do it except by leaving it alone. > I certainly don't see how "you", "here" and "now" are synonyms of consciousness, nor is the use of the terms indicative of consciousness. Well, work on it for a while. You are that which is conscious. Everything else is content. You are always "here" and it is always "now". Subjective awareness. Even in dreams "you" are always "here" and it is always "now". Have you ever not been here? Or existed at a time that isn't now? It's not something you can think out or solve, it's a matter of perception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self-enquiry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi#Self-enquiry
  - robbrown451 7y ago
    Ok well "you", "here", and "now" have meanings that don't depend on consciousness at all. Two software programs on a network could use the terms quite meaningfully. For instance, instead of sending the current timestamp, it could send the message "now" as a shorthand for it. Instead of sending a name/network id of the machine it is communicating with, it could send the message "you" as shorthand for it. Instead of sending the latitude and longitude of the location of where it is, it could send "here" as shorthand for "where you already know I am". There are advantages and disadvantages to this (for instance, network latency could affect the meaning of "now" vs. a timestamp). If you are going to say it's "not a concept" you probably shouldn't then say it is synonomous with these other things. I would argue that it IS a concept, but it becomes an incoherent concept when analyzed closely. Or it becomes a very generalizable concept, one that applies perfectly well to manmade things like self driving cars and maybe even thermostats.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]