4 ms·

I don't disagree with your first point. I meant that it's interesting that there is a phenomenon that is undefinable despite (in my view) self-evidently existin

I don't disagree with your first point. I meant that it's interesting that there is a phenomenon that is undefinable despite (in my view) self-evidently existing I'm familiar with the map-territory distinction, but I still don't think that's sufficient. I'll grant that it's possible to define "I" as an arm's-length name for a representation - basically the same as "my body" or "my hands". And we can, without any philosophical complexity, do that with consciousness itself - I can talk about "my state of consciousness" in the third person. That doesn't, to me, explain subjectivity. The simplest factory robot will have a model of self - likely a much more accurate one than mine. Is it conscious? Does it subjectively experience?

FeepingCreature 6y ago
If it has a (recursive?) model of itself and a sensory input representing its operation, I would argue it's conscious. For instance, I believe computers are conscious in this sense; not in the sense that anything that computes is conscious but in the sense that `top` (or the Windows Task Manager) fulfills many of the listed traits - self-awareness, self-modelling, discrimination. Of course, computers can't actually do nearly as much as we can with their consciousness, but that's a question of skills that are not themselves consciousness. For the closest example, I think there's probably something it is to be like the Linux OOM killer.