5 ms·

I see no reason why consciousness cannot be nothing more than a fully self-contained illusion instantiated by physical brains operating in a physical universe,

I see no reason why consciousness cannot be nothing more than a fully self-contained illusion instantiated by physical brains operating in a physical universe, an emergent consequence of sufficient complexity of processing. Our consciousness seems profound and inexplicable to us, but that’s only because we’re completely blocked from introspection of the runtime environment. We’re aware of almost nothing of what the brain is doing, including the process in which new thoughts are queued up into our consciousness.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I don't see that this is a sustainable account of consciousness. If you write off consciousness as illusory, don't you have to write off suffering as illusory? The screams of the suffering aren't merely status reports from sophisticated replication-machines having detected the occurrence of something untoward. Suffering is real, because consciousness is real. If you make the move of dismissing consciousness as an illusion, I don't see any way out from concluding that suffering is inconsequential; the equivalent of a red LED on a computer. This is plainly absurd. A better account of consciousness would be to explain how it arises from physical processes. Saying there's nothing of interest to explain, doesn't seem like a proper answer. (This is David Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness [0]) > we’re completely blocked from introspection of the runtime environment We aren't. We have various avenues of introspection into consciousness, from neuroscience to psychology to meditation. Do you think greater introspection abilities would cause consciousness to dissolve away? > We’re aware of almost nothing of what the brain is doing, including the process in which new thoughts are queued up into our consciousness. So what? The question isn't How does the brain form new thoughts?, the question is Why is there consciousness? The question of how thoughts arise is what Chalmers calls an 'easy problem of consciousness', a question about detail rather than about the fundamental question of why and how there is consciousness at all. [0] (Chalmers was of course being flippant in his choice of words, he didn't really mean that the entire field of neuroscience is 'easy'.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
- sjwright 6y ago
  > If you write off consciousness as illusory, don't you have to write off suffering as illusory? Just because it’s illusory doesn’t mean you can or should write it off. Illusion is not a synonym for unimportant, so please do not put those words in my mouth. I certainly don't "write off" the suffering of living beings in any way. We are entitled to care, and in fact justified in caring, about these illusions. > Saying there's nothing of interest to explain I didn't say that. You are again putting words in my mouth. This isn’t a healthy form of discourse. > We have various avenues of introspection into consciousness Externally, sure. But if it’s external then it doesn’t qualify as introspection from my understanding of the word. I don’t like semantic disagreements so I apologise for not being clearer. > Do you think greater introspection abilities would cause consciousness to dissolve away? Taking your question as charitably as possible, the answer is yes, I think that is likely. I believe that if we had greater powers of introspection, the illusion would be shattered. Our lack of introspection seems essential for the illusion to work, at least it seems to me. Similarly and alternatively: I could imagine a hypothetical future where we create an artificial intelligence that does everything a human brain does, including an equally effective illusion of consciousness, but be unable to validate the instantiation of the illusion. > the question is Why is there consciousness. I don’t agree: that formulation of words can’t be answered without begging the question. A better question is “why do humans seem to agree that we have this sensation of self awareness?” This whole subject reminds me of the famous quote by Arthur C. Clarke — ” Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

I don't see that this is a sustainable account of consciousness. If you write off consciousness as illusory, don't you have to write off suffering as illusory? The screams of the suffering aren't merely status reports from sophisticated replication-machines having detected the occurrence of something untoward. Suffering is real, because consciousness is real. If you make the move of dismissing consciousness as an illusion, I don't see any way out from concluding that suffering is inconsequential; the equivalent of a red LED on a computer. This is plainly absurd. A better account of consciousness would be to explain how it arises from physical processes. Saying there's nothing of interest to explain, doesn't seem like a proper answer. (This is David Chalmers' hard problem of consciousness [0]) > we’re completely blocked from introspection of the runtime environment We aren't. We have various avenues of introspection into consciousness, from neuroscience to psychology to meditation. Do you think greater introspection abilities would cause consciousness to dissolve away? > We’re aware of almost nothing of what the brain is doing, including the process in which new thoughts are queued up into our consciousness. So what? The question isn't How does the brain form new thoughts?, the question is Why is there consciousness? The question of how thoughts arise is what Chalmers calls an 'easy problem of consciousness', a question about detail rather than about the fundamental question of why and how there is consciousness at all. [0] (Chalmers was of course being flippant in his choice of words, he didn't really mean that the entire field of neuroscience is 'easy'.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

sjwright 6y ago
> If you write off consciousness as illusory, don't you have to write off suffering as illusory? Just because it’s illusory doesn’t mean you can or should write it off. Illusion is not a synonym for unimportant, so please do not put those words in my mouth. I certainly don't "write off" the suffering of living beings in any way. We are entitled to care, and in fact justified in caring, about these illusions. > Saying there's nothing of interest to explain I didn't say that. You are again putting words in my mouth. This isn’t a healthy form of discourse. > We have various avenues of introspection into consciousness Externally, sure. But if it’s external then it doesn’t qualify as introspection from my understanding of the word. I don’t like semantic disagreements so I apologise for not being clearer. > Do you think greater introspection abilities would cause consciousness to dissolve away? Taking your question as charitably as possible, the answer is yes, I think that is likely. I believe that if we had greater powers of introspection, the illusion would be shattered. Our lack of introspection seems essential for the illusion to work, at least it seems to me. Similarly and alternatively: I could imagine a hypothetical future where we create an artificial intelligence that does everything a human brain does, including an equally effective illusion of consciousness, but be unable to validate the instantiation of the illusion. > the question is Why is there consciousness. I don’t agree: that formulation of words can’t be answered without begging the question. A better question is “why do humans seem to agree that we have this sensation of self awareness?” This whole subject reminds me of the famous quote by Arthur C. Clarke — ” Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”