3 ms·

The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. We agree that human

The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification is clear and points to a underlying definition we cannot fully articulate. It is more than a qualia or whatever you call it. We know it has exact parameters simply because we are able to perform classification tasks. The consensus breaks for things like chatGPT. chatGPT straddles some uncertain border that we can't articulate. But in general for the term consciousness we reach consensus by how we classify things as conscious or unconscious.

logicchains 4y ago
> The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article. >We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification is clear and points to a underlying definition we cannot fully articulate. It is more than a qualia or whatever you call it. This is a fallacy. People agree that yellow is not violet and green is not violet, but they don't agree that indigo is not violet. Just because there are some classifications on which people agree about the label this doesn't imply they agree upon all classifications. A more direct example is whether plants are conscious or not.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  >Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article. There is general agreement. We agree for most things like rocks and humans..there are a few things where we aren't sure, like chatGPT. But in general humans are in agreement for most things. >Just because there are some classifications on which people agree about the label this doesn't imply they agree upon all classifications. Well just because ambiguities for certain things exist doesn't preclude the existence of things that are utterly clear to be conscious or unconscious. We know humans are conscious and we know humans have all the required parameters to make them classified as conscious. We just can't deduce the exact thresholds and features that cause a phase shift when changed. But we know these parameters exist.

logicchains 4y ago

> The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article. >We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification is clear and points to a underlying definition we cannot fully articulate. It is more than a qualia or whatever you call it. This is a fallacy. People agree that yellow is not violet and green is not violet, but they don't agree that indigo is not violet. Just because there are some classifications on which people agree about the label this doesn't imply they agree upon all classifications. A more direct example is whether plants are conscious or not.

kilgnad 4y ago
>Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article. There is general agreement. We agree for most things like rocks and humans..there are a few things where we aren't sure, like chatGPT. But in general humans are in agreement for most things. >Just because there are some classifications on which people agree about the label this doesn't imply they agree upon all classifications. Well just because ambiguities for certain things exist doesn't preclude the existence of things that are utterly clear to be conscious or unconscious. We know humans are conscious and we know humans have all the required parameters to make them classified as conscious. We just can't deduce the exact thresholds and features that cause a phase shift when changed. But we know these parameters exist.