3 ms·

I would hope most people regard consciousness as something which can beg compassion, tolerance or compromise for other consciousnesses sakes. Common creatures w

I would hope most people regard consciousness as something which can beg compassion, tolerance or compromise for other consciousnesses sakes. Common creatures we know express suffering and to be amused or unaffected by suffering of others is most widely considered as pathological or psychotic. Without consciousness there is no suffering, no cause for compassion etc. Something may be incredibly complex, suggesting it has value in a world - perhaps to other creatures or the world itself somehow. But being a complex thing does not suggest that it can suffer or enjoy experiences. An idea that an experiential importance of things simply accompanies sufficient complexity seems 'pie in the sand'

webmaven 5y ago
Are you arguing that sociopaths and psychopaths are less conscious than other humans?
- strainer 5y ago
  No, basically consciousness as we know it, entails a capacity to suffer, which is important to acknowledge on moral and health grounds, and that capacity is likely to be an essential part of consciousness. It makes whatever consciousness is or isn't, an important quality which demands consideration, to avoid suffering or to increase fulfillment or wellbeing etc in whatever we believe to be conscious. To 'virtualize' or academically detach that kind of importance of consciousness, as logically illusive or intangible distraction, is pathological. I tried to reply to the notion that consciousness "is just an emergent phenomena of complexity" . The words 'just' 'only' 'simply' can hardly be applied to such a special thing. The idea such a thing arises at a threshold of complexity is quite empty of insight. At a certain level of complexity - an iphone emerges! That's no understanding of what is required to create an iphone or how it works. What is required to emerge consciousness? if it where a matter of complexity then some quantity of iphones should achieve that threshold. But no mountain of iphones can experience suffering.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    Okay, I understand what you're saying. A conscious being is not necessarily required to also have the capacity for recognizing consciousness in other conscious beings. Do you think a capacity for suffering is not only necessary, but also entirely sufficient, for consciousness? That would imply that some other abilities such as memory, are not required.
    - strainer 5y ago
      I think it is quite mysterious. Perhaps there are kinds of consciousness which don't suffer, perhaps octopodes are conscious and since after they have mated - they seem to become crazed and unconcerned for their safety - they may then be in a state then where they can only experience thrills? perhaps after mating their capacity to suffer dies, yet some other feeling capacities persist or arise. Maybe Im proposing consciousness is what is required for a thing to feel in any way. Whether memory is required for experiencing feelings or for consciousness is another mysterious avenue. If we design and implement a program which can render convincing expressions of feeling, or we design systems which themselves calculate networks that output convincing expressions of feeling, what kind of system do we have a duty to be considerate to its own professed and apparent experiences? It is very mysterious but I have never felt that any complexity of calculator or computer can truly beg this consideration, can truly benefit from kindness or mercy. Its seems only childish and fanciful that virtual characters can become real characters no matter the detail of calculation. A plot in a fantasy tale. While the whole subject is full of possibility and unknowns, at least we must keep an anchor on the matter that, consciousness is a thing of special importance.

webmaven 5y ago

Are you arguing that sociopaths and psychopaths are less conscious than other humans?

strainer 5y ago
No, basically consciousness as we know it, entails a capacity to suffer, which is important to acknowledge on moral and health grounds, and that capacity is likely to be an essential part of consciousness. It makes whatever consciousness is or isn't, an important quality which demands consideration, to avoid suffering or to increase fulfillment or wellbeing etc in whatever we believe to be conscious. To 'virtualize' or academically detach that kind of importance of consciousness, as logically illusive or intangible distraction, is pathological. I tried to reply to the notion that consciousness "is just an emergent phenomena of complexity" . The words 'just' 'only' 'simply' can hardly be applied to such a special thing. The idea such a thing arises at a threshold of complexity is quite empty of insight. At a certain level of complexity - an iphone emerges! That's no understanding of what is required to create an iphone or how it works. What is required to emerge consciousness? if it where a matter of complexity then some quantity of iphones should achieve that threshold. But no mountain of iphones can experience suffering.
- webmaven 5y ago
  Okay, I understand what you're saying. A conscious being is not necessarily required to also have the capacity for recognizing consciousness in other conscious beings. Do you think a capacity for suffering is not only necessary, but also entirely sufficient, for consciousness? That would imply that some other abilities such as memory, are not required.
  - strainer 5y ago
    I think it is quite mysterious. Perhaps there are kinds of consciousness which don't suffer, perhaps octopodes are conscious and since after they have mated - they seem to become crazed and unconcerned for their safety - they may then be in a state then where they can only experience thrills? perhaps after mating their capacity to suffer dies, yet some other feeling capacities persist or arise. Maybe Im proposing consciousness is what is required for a thing to feel in any way. Whether memory is required for experiencing feelings or for consciousness is another mysterious avenue. If we design and implement a program which can render convincing expressions of feeling, or we design systems which themselves calculate networks that output convincing expressions of feeling, what kind of system do we have a duty to be considerate to its own professed and apparent experiences? It is very mysterious but I have never felt that any complexity of calculator or computer can truly beg this consideration, can truly benefit from kindness or mercy. Its seems only childish and fanciful that virtual characters can become real characters no matter the detail of calculation. A plot in a fantasy tale. While the whole subject is full of possibility and unknowns, at least we must keep an anchor on the matter that, consciousness is a thing of special importance.