5 ms·

> Finally, I think it is important to appreciate just what a facade our consciousness is. It is a veneer that works well most of the time, but if it is probed t

> Finally, I think it is important to appreciate just what a facade our consciousness is. It is a veneer that works well most of the time, but if it is probed too deeply one discovers what a hodge-podge it really is. Optical illusions are one window into seeing that our perceptions are often pretty shallow. Many people understand the concept of consciousness differently and I think you and the author are talking about different "consciousness". I agree more with the author so will try to defend and say a few things. First - optical illusions or brain trauma/surgery confusing your vision and thoughts has nothing to do with consciousness. Second - nobody can prove or even check whether some other person is conscious or not, which makes investigating consciousness on any physical level a non-starter. There is nothing in physical sciences that can potentially open any paths to this investigation.

meheleventyone 4y ago
The statements you make are pretty absolute and you offer no compelling reason to believe they are correct. You’re missing out explaining why the two things you state are true. Until there is some compelling reason to think you’re right and the person you’re replying to is wrong the other person has a much better argument going.
- kkoncevicius 4y ago
  Compelling reason... First thing I would say is that, I think, I know where the person is coming from. I used to have similar worldview and opinions about consciousness. What is required to see things from the other side is not an argument so much as an insight and a shift of perception. Also, I've had this discussion with people quite a few times it rarely leads to any kind of agreement. But let me try to put out the view from the other side. First, my statement about consciousness having nothing to do with optical illusions. Consciousness is not about "seeing correctly". It's about the perception itself. When I look at an apple I see red. If we played with lights I assume I can see it as green, or as a banana, or don't see it at all. Same with brain trauma. None of these affected the awareness I have of seeing something. This seeing something and being aware of what is it like to see it is consciousness, not the content. Then, going to the second thing I wrote, there is no way for me to test whether, for example, you are conscious or not. It gets cold and you reach for a jacket and put it on. I have no way of telling whether in this process you actually had the perception of what it's like to feel cold, or did your neurons simply fire at certain temperatures and activated the pathways in your brain that led to the memory (without being aware you are having a memory at the time) and a habit of putting on a jacket. This is the famous "philosophical zombie" thought experiment.
  - meheleventyone 4y ago
    Sounds like it’s mostly an argument about the definition of consciousness. At best I think a definition that is immune to being tested as you suggest is going to rank as the least interesting. It just doesn’t seem very inquisitive.
    - kkoncevicius 4y ago
      Yes, but this is a definition of something that exists. And on the contrary - the fact that, seemingly, it cannot be tested in materialistic terms, to me, makes it that much more interesting. In that sense it is not like a concept of God or ghosts or aliens - all of which are merely imagined and cannot be tested. The thing with consciousness is - you know it exists. In fact we can doubt many things, if not everything. But you can never doubt you are having a conscious experience right now.
      - Zigurd 4y ago
        You seem to be claiming that your form of mysticism is rational, when other forms of mysticism are not. Some of your argument parallels that of the god of the gaps: when you say optical illusions say nothing about consciousness, or aphasias say nothing about consciousness, your definition of consciousness is just hiding from measurability.
        kkoncevicius 4y ago
        Here is what I think: I think the definition of consciousness I used here is the same that was used in the posted article. It is not "my definition". I also think that some people never thought about it and are so unfamiliar with the subject that they misinterpret and cannot imagine what the discussion is actually about. It is not God of the gaps in one fundamental way. God of the gaps arguments attempt to justify something invisible by saying you cannot measure it. Consciousness is something visible - in fact it's the only thing that's visible - yet we cannot measure it, and likely never will be able to. As Schrödinger put it: "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." Or to take another grand physicist, Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." Now these are people who thought a lot about both physics and consciousness. I think that when we do justice to both sides - the conclusion that one cannot arise from the principles of the other is inescapable. However, when we only immerse ourselves in materialism or only in spiritual new-age philosophies, we miss this scale of the problem of this mind-body gap the article talks about.

meheleventyone 4y ago

The statements you make are pretty absolute and you offer no compelling reason to believe they are correct. You’re missing out explaining why the two things you state are true. Until there is some compelling reason to think you’re right and the person you’re replying to is wrong the other person has a much better argument going.

kkoncevicius 4y ago
Compelling reason... First thing I would say is that, I think, I know where the person is coming from. I used to have similar worldview and opinions about consciousness. What is required to see things from the other side is not an argument so much as an insight and a shift of perception. Also, I've had this discussion with people quite a few times it rarely leads to any kind of agreement. But let me try to put out the view from the other side. First, my statement about consciousness having nothing to do with optical illusions. Consciousness is not about "seeing correctly". It's about the perception itself. When I look at an apple I see red. If we played with lights I assume I can see it as green, or as a banana, or don't see it at all. Same with brain trauma. None of these affected the awareness I have of seeing something. This seeing something and being aware of what is it like to see it is consciousness, not the content. Then, going to the second thing I wrote, there is no way for me to test whether, for example, you are conscious or not. It gets cold and you reach for a jacket and put it on. I have no way of telling whether in this process you actually had the perception of what it's like to feel cold, or did your neurons simply fire at certain temperatures and activated the pathways in your brain that led to the memory (without being aware you are having a memory at the time) and a habit of putting on a jacket. This is the famous "philosophical zombie" thought experiment.
- meheleventyone 4y ago
  Sounds like it’s mostly an argument about the definition of consciousness. At best I think a definition that is immune to being tested as you suggest is going to rank as the least interesting. It just doesn’t seem very inquisitive.
  - kkoncevicius 4y ago
    Yes, but this is a definition of something that exists. And on the contrary - the fact that, seemingly, it cannot be tested in materialistic terms, to me, makes it that much more interesting. In that sense it is not like a concept of God or ghosts or aliens - all of which are merely imagined and cannot be tested. The thing with consciousness is - you know it exists. In fact we can doubt many things, if not everything. But you can never doubt you are having a conscious experience right now.
    - Zigurd 4y ago
      You seem to be claiming that your form of mysticism is rational, when other forms of mysticism are not. Some of your argument parallels that of the god of the gaps: when you say optical illusions say nothing about consciousness, or aphasias say nothing about consciousness, your definition of consciousness is just hiding from measurability.
      - kkoncevicius 4y ago
        Here is what I think: I think the definition of consciousness I used here is the same that was used in the posted article. It is not "my definition". I also think that some people never thought about it and are so unfamiliar with the subject that they misinterpret and cannot imagine what the discussion is actually about. It is not God of the gaps in one fundamental way. God of the gaps arguments attempt to justify something invisible by saying you cannot measure it. Consciousness is something visible - in fact it's the only thing that's visible - yet we cannot measure it, and likely never will be able to. As Schrödinger put it: "Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else." Or to take another grand physicist, Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." Now these are people who thought a lot about both physics and consciousness. I think that when we do justice to both sides - the conclusion that one cannot arise from the principles of the other is inescapable. However, when we only immerse ourselves in materialism or only in spiritual new-age philosophies, we miss this scale of the problem of this mind-body gap the article talks about.