3 ms·

> Whatever else brains are, we know they are information processing systems. Perceptions go in, and decisions come out. All of our conscious experience is of in

> Whatever else brains are, we know they are information processing systems. Perceptions go in, and decisions come out. All of our conscious experience is of information. Feelings, sensations, emotions, decisions, they’re all information. What else is there? Whatever else your brain is, I know that it is a processing system for what I know about it. What I know about your perceptions goes in, what I know about your decisions comes out. All of your conscious experience is of my information. Your feelings, your emotions, your sensations, your decisions, they're all things that I can know about and understand in relation to the things I can know about. What else is there? So, there is no point in you being so outraged at the article you have read: your "actual" outrage, if there is such a thing, is in fact superfluous to my information that you appear to be outraged by it, which is functionally equivalent. And therefore we can dispense with the illusion that you actually exist. After all, when I imagine a you, nothing actually flaps its mouth, so is your activity more like the weather, or more like a simulation of the weather? (Sorry, I had to.)

simonh 3y ago
That’s fine. Yes, you read my post, which consists of information, and formed a mental model of me and my opinions. That mental model is fundamentally informational. You're conflating me and your model of me though. The model isn’t me, it doesn’t have thoughts or feelings because… and this us the crucial part… the model of me in your head doesn’t process information the way a conscious being does, whereas I do. Therefore I have experiences, whereas it does not. Do you see where you misstepped?
- crdrost 3y ago
  You don't see where you missed it so I don't see why I should admit where I did. I couldn't possibly have conflated you with my model with you, you don't exist and my model of you does. There is nothing beyond the model according to you, so it's all nicely tied with a bow, no?
  - simonh 3y ago
    Of course there is a reality beyond the model. Our sense data comes from somewhere, it’s a model of something. I’m not sure quite what you’re talking about.
    - crdrost 3y ago
      I'm talking about the deep contradiction that you hold between “there is a reality beyond the model” (Anil Seth’s position, the mind is more like the weather) and your other stated position, that the mind is reducible to its information-processing role in generating your “decisions”—which is to say, if we take it to its proper conclusion, that consciousness describes a certain way things behave in the world: some specific subset of this behavior of “take in information and process it and make a decision” is conscious behavior, and that's all the mind is, a certain sort of behavior. Now I have put it to you that in fact my “mental model” of you in my head has the exact same behavior as you, just with respect to other mental things in my head: and therefore we can dispense with the illusion that you really exist. Indeed if we are looking at behavior the way you want to, then Hamlet is conscious. That is, when someone plays Hamlet, we see Hamlet process his information which comes from an external world of medieval alt-universe Denmark, and we see him make his decisions that ultimately lead to his death: Hamlet is a valid black-box to describe with these information processing tools; he receives the information from his father's ghost that his uncle is a murderer (that information had to come from somewhere!) and he decides to collect more information under the guise of depairing madness and pursue revenge. Information comes in, leading to decisions, those decisions lead to more information, which leads to more decisions. And in the “Sorry I had to” comment all I am proposing is that you have the same level of reality which Hamlet has. The historical response of behaviorism was at first to retreat to saying that you also had to describe what behavior would happen in other possible cases, so if I shoot Hamlet then the actor will likely break character, stuff like that... This misses the fact that properly speaking I am not part of Hamlet's external reality in medieval Denmark and someone from that reality could shoot Hamlet and he would react appropriately. But for various other reasons folks abandoned behaviorism for a more sophisticated form of all of this called functionalism, where we abandon the simple notion of your original comment that it's all about information processing and external decisions at the “macro” scale, and try to save the theory by dropping to the “micro” scale. If you are interested in more of these ideas as a beginner The Teaching Company (“Wondrium” now?) had a series on Philosophy of Mind, preview it at https://youtu.be/_6sU3BkS4-A https://youtu.be/_6sU3BkS4-A and if you like it maybe purchase the course—I can't vouch for the whole thing having not listened to it, but I have watched several talks by the lecturer and he always has a fun, common sense, jokey-but-serious style.

simonh 3y ago

That’s fine. Yes, you read my post, which consists of information, and formed a mental model of me and my opinions. That mental model is fundamentally informational. You're conflating me and your model of me though. The model isn’t me, it doesn’t have thoughts or feelings because… and this us the crucial part… the model of me in your head doesn’t process information the way a conscious being does, whereas I do. Therefore I have experiences, whereas it does not. Do you see where you misstepped?

crdrost 3y ago
You don't see where you missed it so I don't see why I should admit where I did. I couldn't possibly have conflated you with my model with you, you don't exist and my model of you does. There is nothing beyond the model according to you, so it's all nicely tied with a bow, no?
- simonh 3y ago
  Of course there is a reality beyond the model. Our sense data comes from somewhere, it’s a model of something. I’m not sure quite what you’re talking about.
  - crdrost 3y ago
    I'm talking about the deep contradiction that you hold between “there is a reality beyond the model” (Anil Seth’s position, the mind is more like the weather) and your other stated position, that the mind is reducible to its information-processing role in generating your “decisions”—which is to say, if we take it to its proper conclusion, that consciousness describes a certain way things behave in the world: some specific subset of this behavior of “take in information and process it and make a decision” is conscious behavior, and that's all the mind is, a certain sort of behavior. Now I have put it to you that in fact my “mental model” of you in my head has the exact same behavior as you, just with respect to other mental things in my head: and therefore we can dispense with the illusion that you really exist. Indeed if we are looking at behavior the way you want to, then Hamlet is conscious. That is, when someone plays Hamlet, we see Hamlet process his information which comes from an external world of medieval alt-universe Denmark, and we see him make his decisions that ultimately lead to his death: Hamlet is a valid black-box to describe with these information processing tools; he receives the information from his father's ghost that his uncle is a murderer (that information had to come from somewhere!) and he decides to collect more information under the guise of depairing madness and pursue revenge. Information comes in, leading to decisions, those decisions lead to more information, which leads to more decisions. And in the “Sorry I had to” comment all I am proposing is that you have the same level of reality which Hamlet has. The historical response of behaviorism was at first to retreat to saying that you also had to describe what behavior would happen in other possible cases, so if I shoot Hamlet then the actor will likely break character, stuff like that... This misses the fact that properly speaking I am not part of Hamlet's external reality in medieval Denmark and someone from that reality could shoot Hamlet and he would react appropriately. But for various other reasons folks abandoned behaviorism for a more sophisticated form of all of this called functionalism, where we abandon the simple notion of your original comment that it's all about information processing and external decisions at the “macro” scale, and try to save the theory by dropping to the “micro” scale. If you are interested in more of these ideas as a beginner The Teaching Company (“Wondrium” now?) had a series on Philosophy of Mind, preview it at https://youtu.be/_6sU3BkS4-A https://youtu.be/_6sU3BkS4-A and if you like it maybe purchase the course—I can't vouch for the whole thing having not listened to it, but I have watched several talks by the lecturer and he always has a fun, common sense, jokey-but-serious style.