58 ms·
Idk it seems to me like you’re reaching for something which may or may not exist - how do we know there even is such a canvas? If you can’t even define what th
by skohan 4y ago
Idk it seems to me like you’re reaching for something which may or may not exist - how do we know there even is such a canvas?
If you can’t even define what this elusive thing might be, how can you raise this as a serious argument against the idea that consciousness is a product of brain function?
- denton-scratch 4y agoOh, I know it's there; it's the only thing I know. (Not "we" - it's private knowledge; but it's not hard to find - it's always there, for eveyone). To extend the analogy: the painting isn't reliable - it's not even certain it's not a hallucination. But there has to be a substrate to paint on, even if the painting itself consists of layer upon layer of deception. I don't know if this is true; but it seems more plausible to me than that consciousness is an accidental consequence of the bizarre tumblings of matter. And anyway: the idea that consciousness is emergent, and matter is fundamental, doesn't offer any explanation of the subjectivity of experience and consciousness. You can't explain consciousness as "emergent" without saying first what it is that emerges. Of course, the appearance of consciousness arises from programs like Eliza, or LaMDAwhotsit. They were made to produce that impression.
- skohan 4y agoWell I suppose we can believe whatever we want, but as our understanding of neuroscience increases, it seems as if the trend is that there is less and less unknown space for that substrate to exist in over time.