4 ms·

So you don't experience pain, have dreams, visualize or inner dialog? You don't have color, smell, taste sensations? It's kind of silly to deny your own experie

So you don't experience pain, have dreams, visualize or inner dialog? You don't have color, smell, taste sensations? It's kind of silly to deny your own experiences.

dekhn 5y ago
Well, I split the subjective experience of consciousness (which I do experience, although I deny that experience means that consciousness truly exists) from that of free well. I think we're subjectively conscious (the inner movie) but that doesn't equate to any sort "mind" or "free will". Somewhere between determinism and compatibilism, if that helps. I think it's very dangerous to say "I experience consciousness, therefore it's scientifically valid".
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by whether consciousness "really exists". Clearly you have a subjective experience... How is that not consciousness? Or are you saying that consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in certain ways (i.e. your brain) and has no existence separate from that? Completely agree free will is a separate argument, and that it doesn't exist.
  - dekhn 5y ago
    "clearly" I have subjective experience? prove it. consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in certain ways.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      That's like proving to a solipsist that other minds exist. You know that you have subjective experiences by virtue of having them yourself. And you even admit consciousness is something by saying that it emerges.
    - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
      Good point. I can't prove it, I am assuming you have it given I have it. I agree consciousness is an emergent property of matter, although I didn't always think that way. Panpsychism appears attractive at first glance (it makes it fundamental, and that is after all our lived experience). But that only seems to move the problem of what it actually is somewhere else, to some mysterious "mind stuff".
      - goatlover 5y ago
        > But that only seems to move the problem of what it actually is somewhere else, to some mysterious "mind stuff". That's true, but a rejoinder would be that anything fundamental is going to be mysterious. Why do fields, particles or quantum mechanics exist? Consciousness might be an emergent property from matter, but it's difficult to give a reductive account of that. The alternative is strong emergentism, which is just as mysterious as panpsychism. Why would something entirely new not logically entailed by the prior physics emerge at some point in the universe's history?
        MattPalmer1086 5y ago
        Great point, it could indeed be fundamental and entirely mysterious. But before we've established that I think it's more interesting to go looking for other explanations.
ncmncm 5y ago
But not to deny your experiences. A sample size of one is mostly meaningless in science.
- goatlover 5y ago
  Philosophy isn't science. But we can ask whether consciousness can someday be explained by science, and what that might look like. David Chalmers proposed a science of consciousness that allows for a non-physical property that comes with rich information processing. A new kind of law that specifies the existence of conscious states any time there is such information in the universe. Panpsychism would be another approach. I'm not claiming either are correct. I'm just pointing out that consciousness is very hard to fit into a scientific framework. If it emerges, what does that entail? Certainly more than merely making that statement.

So you don't experience pain, have dreams, visualize or inner dialog? You don't have color, smell, taste sensations? It's kind of silly to deny your own experiences.

dekhn 5y ago

Well, I split the subjective experience of consciousness (which I do experience, although I deny that experience means that consciousness truly exists) from that of free well. I think we're subjectively conscious (the inner movie) but that doesn't equate to any sort "mind" or "free will". Somewhere between determinism and compatibilism, if that helps. I think it's very dangerous to say "I experience consciousness, therefore it's scientifically valid".

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by whether consciousness "really exists". Clearly you have a subjective experience... How is that not consciousness? Or are you saying that consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in certain ways (i.e. your brain) and has no existence separate from that? Completely agree free will is a separate argument, and that it doesn't exist.
- dekhn 5y ago
  "clearly" I have subjective experience? prove it. consciousness is an emergent property of matter arranged in certain ways.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    That's like proving to a solipsist that other minds exist. You know that you have subjective experiences by virtue of having them yourself. And you even admit consciousness is something by saying that it emerges.
  - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
    Good point. I can't prove it, I am assuming you have it given I have it. I agree consciousness is an emergent property of matter, although I didn't always think that way. Panpsychism appears attractive at first glance (it makes it fundamental, and that is after all our lived experience). But that only seems to move the problem of what it actually is somewhere else, to some mysterious "mind stuff".
    - goatlover 5y ago
      > But that only seems to move the problem of what it actually is somewhere else, to some mysterious "mind stuff". That's true, but a rejoinder would be that anything fundamental is going to be mysterious. Why do fields, particles or quantum mechanics exist? Consciousness might be an emergent property from matter, but it's difficult to give a reductive account of that. The alternative is strong emergentism, which is just as mysterious as panpsychism. Why would something entirely new not logically entailed by the prior physics emerge at some point in the universe's history?
      - MattPalmer1086 5y ago
        Great point, it could indeed be fundamental and entirely mysterious. But before we've established that I think it's more interesting to go looking for other explanations.

ncmncm 5y ago

But not to deny your experiences. A sample size of one is mostly meaningless in science.

goatlover 5y ago
Philosophy isn't science. But we can ask whether consciousness can someday be explained by science, and what that might look like. David Chalmers proposed a science of consciousness that allows for a non-physical property that comes with rich information processing. A new kind of law that specifies the existence of conscious states any time there is such information in the universe. Panpsychism would be another approach. I'm not claiming either are correct. I'm just pointing out that consciousness is very hard to fit into a scientific framework. If it emerges, what does that entail? Certainly more than merely making that statement.