5 ms·

The name matters a lot if you want to clearly communicate your ideas. Your use of terminology leaves so many possible interpretations that it's hard to know ex

The name matters a lot if you want to clearly communicate your ideas. Your use of terminology leaves so many possible interpretations that it's hard to know exactly what you're trying to communicate. Which makes meaningful discussion nigh-on impossible.

Jensson 4y ago
What name would you use instead? Subconsciousness is the only name I know that describes the computations in the brain that we aren't consciously aware of.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  This is pretty funny. Maybe actually read my original reply. It's in there.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    "hidden consciousness" and similar implies that these computations are conscious, that is an assumption we don't have to make here. All that is required is that the process has some reason to invoke the consciousness to get back some data about some scenario. The fact that the process is smart doesn't mean that it has to be conscious, that is just something you made up here, it is a much weaker statement than what I made.
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      It's not something I just made up. It's an extremely common misconception about what the *UNCONSCIOUS* is. Moreover, the way you imprecisely use ill-defined phrases like "subconsciousness", "asking questions", etc gives a very strong impression that you're talking about some outdated, pseudoscientific conception of the unconscious mind as a conscious, distinct entity. You can't be so imprecise and just expect people to understand what you mean. Especially if you don't even read the replies.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        "UNCONSCIOUS" would imply that it isn't conscious. I wouldn't rule that out either. Would I really have to go through and refute every single point, I think that just communicating the general idea should make you understand why the rest doesn't work. Edit: And "asking questions" is just a more natural language way to say "invoking a function to get a result". It wants to compute something that the consciousness is good at computing, like where to go or what to do in scenarios. Exactly why etc, that is very hard to answer for such an intelligent process, we don't even know why it decides to turn the wheel at exact moments etc, trying to answer why it asks specific questions is even harder than that. So, the way these psychologists approach it, trying to think of it as a simple function with simple rules, will never ever work.

Jensson 4y ago

What name would you use instead? Subconsciousness is the only name I know that describes the computations in the brain that we aren't consciously aware of.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
This is pretty funny. Maybe actually read my original reply. It's in there.
- Jensson 4y ago
  "hidden consciousness" and similar implies that these computations are conscious, that is an assumption we don't have to make here. All that is required is that the process has some reason to invoke the consciousness to get back some data about some scenario. The fact that the process is smart doesn't mean that it has to be conscious, that is just something you made up here, it is a much weaker statement than what I made.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    It's not something I just made up. It's an extremely common misconception about what the *UNCONSCIOUS* is. Moreover, the way you imprecisely use ill-defined phrases like "subconsciousness", "asking questions", etc gives a very strong impression that you're talking about some outdated, pseudoscientific conception of the unconscious mind as a conscious, distinct entity. You can't be so imprecise and just expect people to understand what you mean. Especially if you don't even read the replies.
    - Jensson 4y ago
      "UNCONSCIOUS" would imply that it isn't conscious. I wouldn't rule that out either. Would I really have to go through and refute every single point, I think that just communicating the general idea should make you understand why the rest doesn't work. Edit: And "asking questions" is just a more natural language way to say "invoking a function to get a result". It wants to compute something that the consciousness is good at computing, like where to go or what to do in scenarios. Exactly why etc, that is very hard to answer for such an intelligent process, we don't even know why it decides to turn the wheel at exact moments etc, trying to answer why it asks specific questions is even harder than that. So, the way these psychologists approach it, trying to think of it as a simple function with simple rules, will never ever work.