7 ms·

Show your work.

lisper 7y ago
If everything that exists is conscious, then consciousness ceases to be a useful concept and becomes nothing more than a synonym for existence. The concept of consciousness is only useful to distinguish things that are conscious from things that are not. Humans and apes are conscious. Rocks and individual neurons are not. One can have a legitimate debate about the status of computers, great apes, dogs, rats, perhaps even fruit flies, but not rocks, transistors, or individual neurons.
- FreeHugs 7y ago
  1000 and 2000 are big numbers. 10 and 20 are not. One can have a legitimate debate about 48, 70 and 99 being big numbers. But not 30, 28 or 19.
  - lisper 7y ago
    "Big" and "small" are not properties, they are relations. 1000 is big relative to 0.001, but it is small relative to 100000000. In common parlance, "big" and "small" are often used in context where the thing being related is implied, and usually taken to be a human being. Mountains are big (relative to humans) and ants are small (relative to humans). But ants are big relative to atoms and mountains are small relative to planets. But "conscious" isn't a relation, it's a property. Normal humans are conscious. Rocks are not. This is not to say that consciousness might not be a continuous property rather than a dichotomy; it almost certainly is. Nonetheless, there is a point at which the degree of consciousness in a system is indistinguishable from zero, at which point it is no longer useful to say that the thing is conscious.
- babygoat 7y ago
  It wouldn’t make it a synonym with existence, only an aspect of it. If a fertilized egg is not conscious, when precisely does it emerge, and what does that transition entail?
  - lisper 7y ago
    > It wouldn’t make it a synonym with existence, only an aspect of it. It would make "unconscious" a synonym for "non-existent". > If a fertilized egg is not conscious, when precisely does it emerge, and what does that transition entail? No one knows the answer to that. But it's pretty clear to me that consciousness supervenes on brains, so having a brain (or functional equivalent) is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for being conscious.
    - babygoat 7y ago
      > It would make "unconscious" a synonym for "non-existent". Maybe a synonym for “non-physical”, conceptual, or abstract. Why do you say that like it’s some kind of paradox? > No one knows the answer to that. Then how does one know it to be true? > But it's pretty clear to me that consciousness supervenes on brains Why? No one has ever borne that out.
      - lisper 7y ago
        > Why do you say that like it’s some kind of paradox? I'm not. I'm just saying it robs the word "conscious" of most of its utility. It no longer makes sense to say, for example, "That person is unconscious." > Then how does one know it to be true? How does one know what to be true? > Why? No one has ever borne that out. Then I propose we do the following experiment: let's surgically remove your brain and see if afterwards you still profess to be conscious.
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  You're assuming consciousness is a single bit, when that's not even true in humans. How "conscious" are you when slowly waking up? It varies by circumstance, too, e.g. I'd say I'm certainly less explicitly self-aware when I'm walking a familiar route and not thinking about much than when pondering my place in the universe. It's easy to imagine a mind that only had the first kind of experience. We don't even need to consider easy cases of variable consciousness like sleep (maybe with lucid dreams), sedation, coma, etc. Consciousness is a matter of degree, and there's no hard evidence about how low the scale goes.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > You're assuming consciousness is a single bit No, I'm not. Consciousness is a continuum, not a dichotomy. There are nonetheless systems whose degree of consciousness is indistinguishable from zero. > there's no hard evidence about how low the scale goes. Of course there is. It goes down to zero. Rocks are not conscious. Dead people are not conscious. Even humans under general anesthesia are not conscious.
    - procgen 7y ago
      Is anyone but you conscious? If so, how can you be certain?
      - lisper 7y ago
        > Is anyone but you conscious? Yes. > If so, how can you be certain? I can't be absolutely certain of that nor of anything else. The philosophical-zombie hypothesis cannot be ruled out by evidence. But I observe others producing complex I/O behavior that is qualitatively similar to that which I produce and that I attribute to my own consciousness. I also see evidence that my consciousness supervenes on the operation of my brain, and I observe that other people have brains. The most parsimonious explanation for all that is that other humans are also conscious.
        procgen 7y ago

Show your work.

If everything that exists is conscious, then consciousness ceases to be a useful concept and becomes nothing more than a synonym for existence. The concept of consciousness is only useful to distinguish things that are conscious from things that are not. Humans and apes are conscious. Rocks and individual neurons are not. One can have a legitimate debate about the status of computers, great apes, dogs, rats, perhaps even fruit flies, but not rocks, transistors, or individual neurons.

FreeHugs 7y ago
1000 and 2000 are big numbers. 10 and 20 are not. One can have a legitimate debate about 48, 70 and 99 being big numbers. But not 30, 28 or 19.
- lisper 7y ago
  "Big" and "small" are not properties, they are relations. 1000 is big relative to 0.001, but it is small relative to 100000000. In common parlance, "big" and "small" are often used in context where the thing being related is implied, and usually taken to be a human being. Mountains are big (relative to humans) and ants are small (relative to humans). But ants are big relative to atoms and mountains are small relative to planets. But "conscious" isn't a relation, it's a property. Normal humans are conscious. Rocks are not. This is not to say that consciousness might not be a continuous property rather than a dichotomy; it almost certainly is. Nonetheless, there is a point at which the degree of consciousness in a system is indistinguishable from zero, at which point it is no longer useful to say that the thing is conscious.
babygoat 7y ago
It wouldn’t make it a synonym with existence, only an aspect of it. If a fertilized egg is not conscious, when precisely does it emerge, and what does that transition entail?
- lisper 7y ago
  > It wouldn’t make it a synonym with existence, only an aspect of it. It would make "unconscious" a synonym for "non-existent". > If a fertilized egg is not conscious, when precisely does it emerge, and what does that transition entail? No one knows the answer to that. But it's pretty clear to me that consciousness supervenes on brains, so having a brain (or functional equivalent) is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for being conscious.
  - babygoat 7y ago
    > It would make "unconscious" a synonym for "non-existent". Maybe a synonym for “non-physical”, conceptual, or abstract. Why do you say that like it’s some kind of paradox? > No one knows the answer to that. Then how does one know it to be true? > But it's pretty clear to me that consciousness supervenes on brains Why? No one has ever borne that out.
    - lisper 7y ago
      > Why do you say that like it’s some kind of paradox? I'm not. I'm just saying it robs the word "conscious" of most of its utility. It no longer makes sense to say, for example, "That person is unconscious." > Then how does one know it to be true? How does one know what to be true? > Why? No one has ever borne that out. Then I propose we do the following experiment: let's surgically remove your brain and see if afterwards you still profess to be conscious.
andrewflnr 7y ago
You're assuming consciousness is a single bit, when that's not even true in humans. How "conscious" are you when slowly waking up? It varies by circumstance, too, e.g. I'd say I'm certainly less explicitly self-aware when I'm walking a familiar route and not thinking about much than when pondering my place in the universe. It's easy to imagine a mind that only had the first kind of experience. We don't even need to consider easy cases of variable consciousness like sleep (maybe with lucid dreams), sedation, coma, etc. Consciousness is a matter of degree, and there's no hard evidence about how low the scale goes.
- lisper 7y ago
  > You're assuming consciousness is a single bit No, I'm not. Consciousness is a continuum, not a dichotomy. There are nonetheless systems whose degree of consciousness is indistinguishable from zero. > there's no hard evidence about how low the scale goes. Of course there is. It goes down to zero. Rocks are not conscious. Dead people are not conscious. Even humans under general anesthesia are not conscious.
  - procgen 7y ago
    Is anyone but you conscious? If so, how can you be certain?
    - lisper 7y ago
      > Is anyone but you conscious? Yes. > If so, how can you be certain? I can't be absolutely certain of that nor of anything else. The philosophical-zombie hypothesis cannot be ruled out by evidence. But I observe others producing complex I/O behavior that is qualitatively similar to that which I produce and that I attribute to my own consciousness. I also see evidence that my consciousness supervenes on the operation of my brain, and I observe that other people have brains. The most parsimonious explanation for all that is that other humans are also conscious.
      - procgen 7y ago