4 ms·

> What I don't understand is the need to invoke a je ne sais quoi -- a soul, quantum mechanics, whatever pseudo-matter the article is talking about -- to explai

> What I don't understand is the need to invoke a je ne sais quoi -- a soul, quantum mechanics, whatever pseudo-matter the article is talking about -- to explain consciousness. Why should the above processes themselves not be sufficient to give rise to what we experience as consciousness, as an emergent phenomenon? Because consciousness, my experience of it at least, is a fundamentally different type of stuff to anything that constitutes a brain. It's certainly possible to arrange brain-stuff (or silicon chips) to enact motor control and logic. But the jump from that to qualia, to there being something that it is like to be that brain-stuff, is certainly nontrivial. The analogy that occurs to me is that you're assembling a really complex jigsaw puzzle and expecting it to fly. I agree that it's basically impossible to test an artificial consciousness to distinguish it from a Philsophical Zombie... but to me that's a limitation with the scientific method, not with the concept of consciousness, given that "I am conscious" is the thing I am most certain of in the world (given my experience of it). I'm a materialist and on balance I don't think there is anything supernatural about consciousness. But that's not an easy position to hold.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago
> Because consciousness, my experience of it at least, is a fundamentally different type of stuff to anything that constitutes a brain. Isn't a heart a fundamentally different type of stuff from the chemistry that comprises it? What is actually so special about consciousness that it seems like it's different from any other emergent property?
- krageon 5y ago
  > What is actually so special about consciousness Nothing, but if there's one thing I've learned discussing this at length with philosophers and AI students it's that once you get down to it and all the argumentation is gone it will boil down to "I'm special because I want to be". In that sense, discussing these matters with most people is just not a productive use of your time. Unless perhaps you've never done it before and you want to find out what that's like :)
colanderman 5y ago
I guess the way I see it, given that we don't currently have a way to test for consciousness, inventing invisible "consciousness-stuff" is just a solution in search of a problem. We are supposing that it is necessary with no evidence. > The analogy that occurs to me is that you're assembling a really complex jigsaw puzzle and expecting it to fly. I would though. More precisely -- if I looked at a real airplane and modeled it with, say, balsa wood and a rubber-band propeller, even with no understanding of why airplanes fly, I would expect it to fly, and I think that would be reasonable. I don't think that I would think, because flight is so fundamentally different than what wood and rubber bands normally do, that a "real" airplane must be also composed of some invisible "flight-stuff" that I cannot harness for my model. Even if I say, neglected to angle the propeller blades or wings correctly, so it did not fly or even move on its first attempt, supposing a new branch of physics would not be my go-to explanation. I do see your point though about consciousness being a qualia and philosophical zombies (thanks for introducing me to that term). It's supremely challenging to conceptualize who is the "me" who is experiencing consciousness.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago

> Because consciousness, my experience of it at least, is a fundamentally different type of stuff to anything that constitutes a brain. Isn't a heart a fundamentally different type of stuff from the chemistry that comprises it? What is actually so special about consciousness that it seems like it's different from any other emergent property?

krageon 5y ago
> What is actually so special about consciousness Nothing, but if there's one thing I've learned discussing this at length with philosophers and AI students it's that once you get down to it and all the argumentation is gone it will boil down to "I'm special because I want to be". In that sense, discussing these matters with most people is just not a productive use of your time. Unless perhaps you've never done it before and you want to find out what that's like :)

colanderman 5y ago

I guess the way I see it, given that we don't currently have a way to test for consciousness, inventing invisible "consciousness-stuff" is just a solution in search of a problem. We are supposing that it is necessary with no evidence. > The analogy that occurs to me is that you're assembling a really complex jigsaw puzzle and expecting it to fly. I would though. More precisely -- if I looked at a real airplane and modeled it with, say, balsa wood and a rubber-band propeller, even with no understanding of why airplanes fly, I would expect it to fly, and I think that would be reasonable. I don't think that I would think, because flight is so fundamentally different than what wood and rubber bands normally do, that a "real" airplane must be also composed of some invisible "flight-stuff" that I cannot harness for my model. Even if I say, neglected to angle the propeller blades or wings correctly, so it did not fly or even move on its first attempt, supposing a new branch of physics would not be my go-to explanation. I do see your point though about consciousness being a qualia and philosophical zombies (thanks for introducing me to that term). It's supremely challenging to conceptualize who is the "me" who is experiencing consciousness.