3 ms·

>So here is my another attempt: the sensation that appears in your "minds eye" when you see or imagine a red color. The awareness of this color is what consciou

>So here is my another attempt: the sensation that appears in your "minds eye" when you see or imagine a red color. The awareness of this color is what consciousness is about The problem with that is the bucket was just kicked further away: what does it mean for something to be aware of something else? Bacteria react to their environment (as such there has to be something at least loosely similar to awareness to them), but most people don't think they are conscious What I dislike a little about the subject is how lots of people act so sure there's a special sauce to their minds, except they never manage to narrow to anything more precise than "it's a feeling that you'll know what it is if you pay attention to it" For most other topics, saying "you'll get what I'm talking about with some instrospection" would be immediately rejected Also, how does it work for people with aphantasia and without inner monologue? >The fact that you are having a conscious experience of something cannot be doubted Only if you are sure of the loose / hand-wavey definition of consciousness. I'm sure a hypothetical organism that's vastly more intelligent than us, but with the same loose definition, would consider us barely conscious

kkoncevicius 4y ago
Another attempt to clarify what I mean. > Bacteria react to their environment, but most people don't think they are conscious. This is precisely one of the points. You don't have to be conscious to react, learn, etc. A thermostat can react to changes in temperature and adjust the dials without any consciousness. In the same way many people often find themselves to have done something automatically without them being aware, as in "I was thinking about something and I drove to the wrong place" (or indeed, more often to the correct place, doesn't matter). Have you not had an experience like this? > For most other topics, saying "you'll get what I'm talking about with some instrospection" would be immediately rejected You are aware of things and you are aware that you are aware of things. This is something that can be pointed to and discussed. Just like any other concept in the world. > Also, how does it work for people with aphantasia and without inner monologue? The same way it works for blind and/or deaf people. They are aware of different sensations. When you have an inner dialogue you concentrate on it and you have a sort of "light" shining on that process, while maybe performing a lot of different tasks at the same time (like driving). This attention/focus/light is the thing. Damaging an organ cuts out signals sent by your body and you can no longer be aware of them, because there is nothing there. But awareness remains and can be directed to other things. > Only if you are sure of the loose / hand-wavey definition of consciousness I disagree that it's hand-wavey. It's a concrete thing that is difficult to communicate the first time, but becomes easier after familiarity, like all the other concepts and definitions. > I'm sure a hypothetical organism that's vastly more intelligent than us, but with the same loose definition, would consider us barely conscious Intelligence and this definition of consciousness have nothing to do with each other. In fact the opposite might be true. I've had similar discussions in the past, and the most intelligent people often have the most difficulty with understanding this concept. I think this is because they are used to living in their heads and being aware of their ideas and thoughts all the time. What I would say to such a person is to first entertain the proposition that you are not your thoughts, and try to watch your thoughts as they arise and go and then who is the one watching? And when you watch your breath instead, there is no one watching the thoughts, thou they are still happening without you being aware of them. The "watching" part is consciousness. Or another idea - do a thought experiment. Imagine a universe without any life forms some billion years ago. Rocks and dust and darkness and stars. But no one to observe this. This universe is "dark" in that sense - there is no one watching. Reactions just take place without being witnessed or observed. This is a place with no consciousness. In this place nothing that happens ever matters to anyone else, because no one is there to experience. Now imagine a future, where general AI takes over and humanity is dead. This AI - we can never measure if it is conscious or not. It is doing complicated computations inside, but is there a "ghost in the shell" watching and witnessing? No one can tell. It can act, optimise, combine, memorise, improve, create new ideas and formulas, and execute them in a stochastic manner. But at the same time it can be entirely unconscious. Again this version of the universe is "dark". Nothing there matters to anyone. Now imagine an unconscious person, a thing called a philosophical zombie. It is just like a human being, but has no consciousness. When it is afraid the heart-rate rises, the adrenaline pumps, limbs start to shake, it sweats, and a lot of calculations quickly run through the neurons. But at the same time the "ghost" might not be there and theoretically no one might have an experience of being in this state of stress. The being of such a person would be "dark". Hope these examples help somewhat...

kkoncevicius 4y ago

Another attempt to clarify what I mean. > Bacteria react to their environment, but most people don't think they are conscious. This is precisely one of the points. You don't have to be conscious to react, learn, etc. A thermostat can react to changes in temperature and adjust the dials without any consciousness. In the same way many people often find themselves to have done something automatically without them being aware, as in "I was thinking about something and I drove to the wrong place" (or indeed, more often to the correct place, doesn't matter). Have you not had an experience like this? > For most other topics, saying "you'll get what I'm talking about with some instrospection" would be immediately rejected You are aware of things and you are aware that you are aware of things. This is something that can be pointed to and discussed. Just like any other concept in the world. > Also, how does it work for people with aphantasia and without inner monologue? The same way it works for blind and/or deaf people. They are aware of different sensations. When you have an inner dialogue you concentrate on it and you have a sort of "light" shining on that process, while maybe performing a lot of different tasks at the same time (like driving). This attention/focus/light is the thing. Damaging an organ cuts out signals sent by your body and you can no longer be aware of them, because there is nothing there. But awareness remains and can be directed to other things. > Only if you are sure of the loose / hand-wavey definition of consciousness I disagree that it's hand-wavey. It's a concrete thing that is difficult to communicate the first time, but becomes easier after familiarity, like all the other concepts and definitions. > I'm sure a hypothetical organism that's vastly more intelligent than us, but with the same loose definition, would consider us barely conscious Intelligence and this definition of consciousness have nothing to do with each other. In fact the opposite might be true. I've had similar discussions in the past, and the most intelligent people often have the most difficulty with understanding this concept. I think this is because they are used to living in their heads and being aware of their ideas and thoughts all the time. What I would say to such a person is to first entertain the proposition that you are not your thoughts, and try to watch your thoughts as they arise and go and then who is the one watching? And when you watch your breath instead, there is no one watching the thoughts, thou they are still happening without you being aware of them. The "watching" part is consciousness. Or another idea - do a thought experiment. Imagine a universe without any life forms some billion years ago. Rocks and dust and darkness and stars. But no one to observe this. This universe is "dark" in that sense - there is no one watching. Reactions just take place without being witnessed or observed. This is a place with no consciousness. In this place nothing that happens ever matters to anyone else, because no one is there to experience. Now imagine a future, where general AI takes over and humanity is dead. This AI - we can never measure if it is conscious or not. It is doing complicated computations inside, but is there a "ghost in the shell" watching and witnessing? No one can tell. It can act, optimise, combine, memorise, improve, create new ideas and formulas, and execute them in a stochastic manner. But at the same time it can be entirely unconscious. Again this version of the universe is "dark". Nothing there matters to anyone. Now imagine an unconscious person, a thing called a philosophical zombie. It is just like a human being, but has no consciousness. When it is afraid the heart-rate rises, the adrenaline pumps, limbs start to shake, it sweats, and a lot of calculations quickly run through the neurons. But at the same time the "ghost" might not be there and theoretically no one might have an experience of being in this state of stress. The being of such a person would be "dark". Hope these examples help somewhat...