5 ms·

How do you know there is a difference between a conscious being and a glass of water? I'm not saying the glass of water is conscious. Let's say it isn't. Wha

How do you know there is a difference between a conscious being and a glass of water? I'm not saying the glass of water is conscious. Let's say it isn't. What tells you that an animal is any different?

mdeck_ 6y ago
This is yet another philosophical problem: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Another good analogy here is definition of life. What is life and what is a difference between a living being and a glass of water? The difference is that they are different systems that work in different ways, for a system to be conscious, it should work in a certain way, and a glass of water doesn't work in that way, that's why it's not conscious. Consciousness should perceive reality, remember, model and analyze it, maybe even have intelligence, will, abstract thought, attention and reflection, then it can be seen as consciousness.
kobe_bryant 6y ago
because we have neurons and a glass of water doesnt
- selfsimilar 6y ago
  Are you sure that neurons are a precondition for consciousness? I'm not arguing a glass fo water is conscious, but that argues against computers ever being conscious because they also have no neurons.
  - kobe_bryant 6y ago
    thats true, I guess theyre not required for consciousness but thats how it evolved here on Earth. I suppose all you would need is to be able to have a mental map of the world, however it happens
  - morpheos137 6y ago
    I think computers could be conscious (whatever that means) if they modelled living minds to a sufficiently high degree of precision. I do not see why the physical substrate would matter.
telmo 6y ago
I don't know if a glass of water is conscious or not, nor can I come up with a scientific experience to test such an hypothesis, so I remain agnostic on that question. In fact, I cannot even come up with a scientific experience to test if other people are conscious. I just bet they are, because they are similar to me and I know I am. My point is simply that "feeling" already assumes consciousness. Maybe everything is conscious. Still, saying "it's just a feeling" explains nothing. Most people assume that glasses of water are not conscious, so I just used that example to illustrate my point. But you make a valid remark.
- prox 6y ago
  The perfect example of : dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am")
  - telmo 6y ago
    Indeed!
  - Der_Einzige 6y ago
    I hadn't scrolled down this far when I brought up the cogito myself - but I guess great minds think alike. But, I think Descartes is straight up wrong here. He doesn't doubt, he believes that he doubts. Descartes never got away from his evil demon - it simply blinded him. He didn't take radical skepticism far enough and if he did he would realize that the Cogito is not good enough for a proof of ontology! The universe of the evil skepticism demon is as follows: "There is exactly one truth, that there are no other truths". If you hold that axiom, than how can one unironically conclude that the cogito is a neat proof of ontology? Seems like the philosophical equivalent of "wet pavement causes rain"
    - prox 6y ago
      What do you offer as the difference between the belief that he doubts and “actual” doubt. For him the doubt seems actual and acute. He doesn’t believe in the doubt, he is experiencing it. (Also Descartes never said doubt, that is a common addition)
tcgv 6y ago
This crosses my mind from time to time, what physical properties sustain conciousness? Our brains, which is where we suppose our conciousness originates, is made (most likely) from the same sub-atomic particles inanimate objects are made of. So is there something more to these inanimate objects? Does a rock has more potential then we are aware of? I don't know. Funny question to ask though.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  > sub-atomic particles Mostly whole atoms (or ions) plus electrons and protons (although the latter could be thought of as the ion of a particular isotope of hydrogen). Being pedantic, we can include photons, too.

mdeck_ 6y ago

This is yet another philosophical problem: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

Another good analogy here is definition of life. What is life and what is a difference between a living being and a glass of water? The difference is that they are different systems that work in different ways, for a system to be conscious, it should work in a certain way, and a glass of water doesn't work in that way, that's why it's not conscious. Consciousness should perceive reality, remember, model and analyze it, maybe even have intelligence, will, abstract thought, attention and reflection, then it can be seen as consciousness.

kobe_bryant 6y ago

because we have neurons and a glass of water doesnt

selfsimilar 6y ago
Are you sure that neurons are a precondition for consciousness? I'm not arguing a glass fo water is conscious, but that argues against computers ever being conscious because they also have no neurons.
- kobe_bryant 6y ago
  thats true, I guess theyre not required for consciousness but thats how it evolved here on Earth. I suppose all you would need is to be able to have a mental map of the world, however it happens
- morpheos137 6y ago
  I think computers could be conscious (whatever that means) if they modelled living minds to a sufficiently high degree of precision. I do not see why the physical substrate would matter.

telmo 6y ago

I don't know if a glass of water is conscious or not, nor can I come up with a scientific experience to test such an hypothesis, so I remain agnostic on that question. In fact, I cannot even come up with a scientific experience to test if other people are conscious. I just bet they are, because they are similar to me and I know I am. My point is simply that "feeling" already assumes consciousness. Maybe everything is conscious. Still, saying "it's just a feeling" explains nothing. Most people assume that glasses of water are not conscious, so I just used that example to illustrate my point. But you make a valid remark.

prox 6y ago
The perfect example of : dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am")
- telmo 6y ago
  Indeed!
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  I hadn't scrolled down this far when I brought up the cogito myself - but I guess great minds think alike. But, I think Descartes is straight up wrong here. He doesn't doubt, he believes that he doubts. Descartes never got away from his evil demon - it simply blinded him. He didn't take radical skepticism far enough and if he did he would realize that the Cogito is not good enough for a proof of ontology! The universe of the evil skepticism demon is as follows: "There is exactly one truth, that there are no other truths". If you hold that axiom, than how can one unironically conclude that the cogito is a neat proof of ontology? Seems like the philosophical equivalent of "wet pavement causes rain"
  - prox 6y ago
    What do you offer as the difference between the belief that he doubts and “actual” doubt. For him the doubt seems actual and acute. He doesn’t believe in the doubt, he is experiencing it. (Also Descartes never said doubt, that is a common addition)

tcgv 6y ago

This crosses my mind from time to time, what physical properties sustain conciousness? Our brains, which is where we suppose our conciousness originates, is made (most likely) from the same sub-atomic particles inanimate objects are made of. So is there something more to these inanimate objects? Does a rock has more potential then we are aware of? I don't know. Funny question to ask though.

Koshkin 6y ago
> sub-atomic particles Mostly whole atoms (or ions) plus electrons and protons (although the latter could be thought of as the ion of a particular isotope of hydrogen). Being pedantic, we can include photons, too.