4 ms·

I think we are over the hard problem of consciousness, and the problem was only hard because we are emotional about it and think that it should be more special

I think we are over the hard problem of consciousness, and the problem was only hard because we are emotional about it and think that it should be more special than it's humble information-processing origin suggests. We are biased when it comes to consciousness because we are right in the middle of it, it compels us to take it seriously, in fact it lies to us for practical reasons. In a way the entire subjective experience of having a self that makes a decision is an illusion, every subjective experience is. We feel cold, we see images, but it's all an information-processing machine convincing us that we feel it, that we see them. What actually happens is different, and we are not privy to it, but we are starting to understand it. For example the self itself doesn't make decisions, it's a report from all over the brain integrated into a coherent story, which is fed back to the memory and the rest of the brain. Our memory too is not what it feels like, for example we can't simply recall things, to do that we have to create a new memory with a new coherent story that integrates some of the original memory, reinterpreted. But your brain doesn't tell you this, it just makes you believe that you remember things. You often remember them wrong though. Humans are very unreliable witnesses for this reason. We have an entire bouquet of cognitive biases and heuristics, we don't even notice them. Our brain have to use shortcuts, but it lies about them. Turns out we are quite predictable actually, and therefore exploitable by marketing, politics or religion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Consciousness is a tower of practical lies hiding the machinery, which is basically an information-processing machine capable of manipulating information. All we are privy to is the manipulated information. Our brain is in control of the entire process, our subjective experiences feel real, because we are made to believe that they feel real. We have no choice in the matter. When you are seeing a red door you are processing information, you are not seeing a red door, the information is just manipulated that way. And of course if you are seeing a red door, there is a door in reality, since brains evolved to be practical. It wouldn't lie you about a door being there, though it may lie about the the size for practical reasons. Objects with saturated colors look larger for example. See color psychology. https://www.nickkolenda.com/color-psychology/ https://www.nickkolenda.com/color-psychology/ Physics is not only sufficient to create minds, it's why they work this way, otherwise I would imagine God could have done better.

mistermann 4y ago
> Physics is not only sufficient to create minds, it's why they work this way, otherwise I would imagine God could have done better. Is this proposition subject to all the unreliability you note? Is this proposition 100% unanimous scientific consensus?
- Comevius 4y ago
  The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you manage to eliminate the biases. The classic double blind used widely in experiments would be an example of that. Airline pilots using checklists is another example. As for the theories for consciousness science is dealing with the details of it, not whether it's information-processing or not, It's kind of a given that no magic is involved, because of how the brain works and because of how thermodynamics works, but also because of computers. A red door in a video game is also manipulated information. But the great thing about science is that it's not set on excluding magic, or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. Science can try, but can a correct answer necessarily be reached? Has a correct answer been reached, or might you be engaged in some speculation, perhaps unintentionally? > We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you manage to eliminate the biases. Have you eliminated your biases? > The classic double blind used widely in experiments would be an example of that. Airline pilots using checklists is another example. Some techniques work on some problems, but not all techniques work on all problems. Do these techniques work on this problem? > As for the theories for consciousness science is dealing with the details of it... They are certainly working on some details of it, but "the" details is an ontological claim that implies a comprehensive understanding. Also, there are known aspects like phenomenology and causality that it is a bit of a stretch to say that science is "working on the details" of (as compared to the level of quality and magnitude they are reputed and perceived to work on things at). > ...not whether it's information-processing or not, It's kind of a given that no magic is involved... Does "kind of a given" mean "it is conclusively known, in an epistemically flawless manner"? > ...because of how the brain works and because of how thermodynamics works, but also because of computers. It is not known how the brain works, comprehensively. Only some things are known, and one of which is that most brains are not able to skilfully identify the boundaries of their knowledge, and what lies beyond - in such cases, "reality" is generated on the fly and injected into the stream, typically with no indication that it is a simulated reality. > But the great thing about science is that it's not set on excluding magic... Science itself, in that it has no volition - scientists on the other hand, they do have volition, as well as not well constrained or understood imaginations. > ...or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed. And yet, speculation (not realized as such) is extremely common, particularly among the fan base. When religious people do this they get mocked relentlessly, it's an interesting double standard.

mistermann 4y ago

> Physics is not only sufficient to create minds, it's why they work this way, otherwise I would imagine God could have done better. Is this proposition subject to all the unreliability you note? Is this proposition 100% unanimous scientific consensus?

Comevius 4y ago
The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you manage to eliminate the biases. The classic double blind used widely in experiments would be an example of that. Airline pilots using checklists is another example. As for the theories for consciousness science is dealing with the details of it, not whether it's information-processing or not, It's kind of a given that no magic is involved, because of how the brain works and because of how thermodynamics works, but also because of computers. A red door in a video game is also manipulated information. But the great thing about science is that it's not set on excluding magic, or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > The unreliability can be weeded out, cross-examined, this is what science does basically. Science can try, but can a correct answer necessarily be reached? Has a correct answer been reached, or might you be engaged in some speculation, perhaps unintentionally? > We ourselves are unreliable observers, but you can work with it if you manage to eliminate the biases. Have you eliminated your biases? > The classic double blind used widely in experiments would be an example of that. Airline pilots using checklists is another example. Some techniques work on some problems, but not all techniques work on all problems. Do these techniques work on this problem? > As for the theories for consciousness science is dealing with the details of it... They are certainly working on some details of it, but "the" details is an ontological claim that implies a comprehensive understanding. Also, there are known aspects like phenomenology and causality that it is a bit of a stretch to say that science is "working on the details" of (as compared to the level of quality and magnitude they are reputed and perceived to work on things at). > ...not whether it's information-processing or not, It's kind of a given that no magic is involved... Does "kind of a given" mean "it is conclusively known, in an epistemically flawless manner"? > ...because of how the brain works and because of how thermodynamics works, but also because of computers. It is not known how the brain works, comprehensively. Only some things are known, and one of which is that most brains are not able to skilfully identify the boundaries of their knowledge, and what lies beyond - in such cases, "reality" is generated on the fly and injected into the stream, typically with no indication that it is a simulated reality. > But the great thing about science is that it's not set on excluding magic... Science itself, in that it has no volition - scientists on the other hand, they do have volition, as well as not well constrained or understood imaginations. > ...or rather some weird new science if it's required to explain things, but there is also no reason to speculate about it when it's not needed. And yet, speculation (not realized as such) is extremely common, particularly among the fan base. When religious people do this they get mocked relentlessly, it's an interesting double standard.