4 ms·

> The fact that other humans are so similar to me (all humans are similar in virtue of being human organisms) allows for an analogical inference: You guys are s

> The fact that other humans are so similar to me (all humans are similar in virtue of being human organisms) allows for an analogical inference: You guys are similar to me, I am conscious, therefore you are probably also conscious. That hinges on the fact that the brain, or human-like body, is related to the existence of consciousness. But there's no reason to believe that a bunch of electrical pulses as the source of consciousness. For example, had "I" existed as a plant, then it would be reasonable for me to think that other plants are also conscious and that plants are what give rise to consciousness.

cubefox 3y ago
I am both consciousness and have a brain, and alterations in the brain (chemical or physical) correlate with changes in consciousness. Which suggests that our "bunch of electrical pulses" are at least sufficient for consciousness. Plants may be also be conscious, but that would require the existence of an additional, very different, cause of consciousness than in humans. The theory "X is only explained by Y" is simpler than "X is explained by Y, and X is explained by Z". Ockham's razor suggests it's more likely for there to be fewer causes than many.
- kajaktum 3y ago
  I am not convinced. Consider the color red. I can explain the physics of what the color red is, how it travels through space, how my eyes interact with the particular waves, sends signal to my brain and somehow generates what I think of as "red". But this explanation is meaningless, there's nothing about the waves that explain why "red" is the way it is. For example, why don't I experience red as blue and vice versa? Similarly, consciousness is like that. I can have an explanation down to the quarks and follow the chain of physical phenomena that happen from the big bang up to this point and I will find nothing that would explain why there's "something" at all. In a sense, the fact that the color "red" is the way I perceive it is merely a coincidence. I happen to experience it that way. There's no reason why it has to be that way. I had similar experience when I learnt that some people don't have inner monologue; it completely blew my understanding of what "is like".
  - kelseyfrog 3y ago
    I can't help but think colors above all else are experienced as a learned phenomenon. Anyone with a kiddo, and who has paid attention during this stage of their development should know this effect: colors are context-dependant. You can have a kiddo who can accurately name colors on a printed page, on blocks, or any other reduced setting, and have them completely fail at the real world task The most noticable error is the color of the sky. A kiddo who can, with 100% accuracy telling blue blocks from white blocks will, before correction, label the sky as white. It's uncanny. We often forget this correction as parents, but if you look for it, it's there. I'll can't help but wonder how much of our color perception is stochastic parroting once the appropriate labels have been learned.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      Wait, they say it is white not just about a cloudy sky but also about a clear sky? (Which would suggest they think "white" means "bright", which doesn't seem too unreasonable.)
      - kelseyfrog 3y ago
        Yes, a perfectly clear sky. It is a common perceptual illusion. I think it's interesting not that it's wrong, but that children are consistently wrong in the same way.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Well, the brain story may not be a complete explanation, though a necessary part of it. Just like a motor alone doesn't fully explain why a car drives, while still providing a partial explanation. A plant may lack the equivalence of a "motor" for consciousness, which would mean it can't be conscious. And while the existence of a motor in a car not strictly implies that it can drive, the motor still makes it more likely that it can. So the fact that you have inner monologue, experience red in a certain way instead of another, is evidence that the same holds for other people. Of course there could be defeating evidence in the opposite direction, like reading a survey where most people claim not to have inner monologue. (In terms of colors such evidence seems hard or impossible to obtain though. How would we test for switched color experience? Perhaps physically linking brains in the future.)
- hnfong 3y ago
  > Which suggests that our "bunch of electrical pulses" are at least sufficient for consciousness. I think it only suggests necessary conditions. Example: whether you are breathing is also connected to your state of consciousness, but it doesn’t follow that it’s sufficient. not to mention the stories about people reporting seeing strange things during the Near Death Experiences, often their brain is not quite working at the time.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> That hinges on the fact that the brain, or human-like body, is related to the existence of consciousness. That's what the evidence indicates. Anything else is mystical woo-woo that can be disregarded.
- hnfong 3y ago
  As long as you disregard evidence that does not conform with your worldview, all evidence you see support whatever you believe.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    No one is disregarding any evidence here.
    - hnfong 3y ago
      No True Evidence involves woowoo!

cubefox 3y ago

I am both consciousness and have a brain, and alterations in the brain (chemical or physical) correlate with changes in consciousness. Which suggests that our "bunch of electrical pulses" are at least sufficient for consciousness. Plants may be also be conscious, but that would require the existence of an additional, very different, cause of consciousness than in humans. The theory "X is only explained by Y" is simpler than "X is explained by Y, and X is explained by Z". Ockham's razor suggests it's more likely for there to be fewer causes than many.

kajaktum 3y ago
I am not convinced. Consider the color red. I can explain the physics of what the color red is, how it travels through space, how my eyes interact with the particular waves, sends signal to my brain and somehow generates what I think of as "red". But this explanation is meaningless, there's nothing about the waves that explain why "red" is the way it is. For example, why don't I experience red as blue and vice versa? Similarly, consciousness is like that. I can have an explanation down to the quarks and follow the chain of physical phenomena that happen from the big bang up to this point and I will find nothing that would explain why there's "something" at all. In a sense, the fact that the color "red" is the way I perceive it is merely a coincidence. I happen to experience it that way. There's no reason why it has to be that way. I had similar experience when I learnt that some people don't have inner monologue; it completely blew my understanding of what "is like".
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I can't help but think colors above all else are experienced as a learned phenomenon. Anyone with a kiddo, and who has paid attention during this stage of their development should know this effect: colors are context-dependant. You can have a kiddo who can accurately name colors on a printed page, on blocks, or any other reduced setting, and have them completely fail at the real world task The most noticable error is the color of the sky. A kiddo who can, with 100% accuracy telling blue blocks from white blocks will, before correction, label the sky as white. It's uncanny. We often forget this correction as parents, but if you look for it, it's there. I'll can't help but wonder how much of our color perception is stochastic parroting once the appropriate labels have been learned.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    Wait, they say it is white not just about a cloudy sky but also about a clear sky? (Which would suggest they think "white" means "bright", which doesn't seem too unreasonable.)
    - kelseyfrog 3y ago
      Yes, a perfectly clear sky. It is a common perceptual illusion. I think it's interesting not that it's wrong, but that children are consistently wrong in the same way.
- cubefox 3y ago
  Well, the brain story may not be a complete explanation, though a necessary part of it. Just like a motor alone doesn't fully explain why a car drives, while still providing a partial explanation. A plant may lack the equivalence of a "motor" for consciousness, which would mean it can't be conscious. And while the existence of a motor in a car not strictly implies that it can drive, the motor still makes it more likely that it can. So the fact that you have inner monologue, experience red in a certain way instead of another, is evidence that the same holds for other people. Of course there could be defeating evidence in the opposite direction, like reading a survey where most people claim not to have inner monologue. (In terms of colors such evidence seems hard or impossible to obtain though. How would we test for switched color experience? Perhaps physically linking brains in the future.)
hnfong 3y ago
> Which suggests that our "bunch of electrical pulses" are at least sufficient for consciousness. I think it only suggests necessary conditions. Example: whether you are breathing is also connected to your state of consciousness, but it doesn’t follow that it’s sufficient. not to mention the stories about people reporting seeing strange things during the Near Death Experiences, often their brain is not quite working at the time.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

> That hinges on the fact that the brain, or human-like body, is related to the existence of consciousness. That's what the evidence indicates. Anything else is mystical woo-woo that can be disregarded.

hnfong 3y ago
As long as you disregard evidence that does not conform with your worldview, all evidence you see support whatever you believe.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  No one is disregarding any evidence here.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    No True Evidence involves woowoo!