3 ms·

You've already fallen into several pits of failure, perhaps without realising it. Firstly, "alive" and "dead" are very squishy words with no clear definition.

You've already fallen into several pits of failure, perhaps without realising it. Firstly, "alive" and "dead" are very squishy words with no clear definition. You can mould them into whatever you please, but that's not a firm foundation for any kind of debate. Second, you can't just state your position as fact. You say that "Consciousness has nothing to do with any sort of processing." That's not an argument! You're making an assumption, and treating it as an obvious thing we all agree on. We don't. In fact, it's the main point of disagreement. This is like a theologian assuming the Bible is true because God wrote it, but Atheists don't believe God exists. "Any process is the content of experience, not the subject." -- this is too vague to respond to. It could mean anything. Other than hand-wavey, vague things, you've only said one clear thing, which is to assume the outcome that you would like. Materialists aren't just making assumptions. Tests have been done. Real, scientific experiments. We can (trivially!) alter consciousness through chemical, surgical, or electromagnetic means. Simple physical processes seem to underlie consciousness, and altering those processes alters consciousness. Every teenager that has taken LSD or mushrooms can attest to this fact. Anyone that has taken a nasty hit to head can experience this first hand.

xmonkee 3y ago
I admit my language is squishy. Sometimes it helps point to what I'm trying to point to. And I know where you are coming from, as someone who was a materialist for much of my life. We are simply talking about different things. You are talking about the contents of consciousness - the things that get altered by physical processes. We don't need tests to establish that. When the sun rises, the contents of my consciousness change from black to orange, thus we know that physical processes can change the contents of my awareness. I am taking about consciousness itself. When the sun rises, the sky is the same, even it now seems orange.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  > When the sun rises, the sky is the same, even it now seems orange. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. When the sun rises, the colour of the sky changes in ways measurable with physical devices and noticeable to animal and human eyes. It is not "the same" in any sense. Different photons traverse it, its temperature changes, ionisation of its gas molecules change, etc...
  - xmonkee 3y ago
    >Different photons traverse it Yeah, but "it" is the same sky. The presence or absence of particles does not alter the sky itself. More accurately, space is independent of it's contents. Mind you, this is only a metaphor. Consciousness is not physical space. Just like physical space is the "space" of physical objects; Consciousness is the "space" of perception. You share almost nothing in common with who you were when you were 5 years old. Even if all the cells in your body have been replaced, and all your thoughts and your way of thinking itself has changed, you are still the same person. It's the same consciousness. That continuity is you. You are that consciousness. Do you see it?
    - simonh 3y ago
      That’s the Ship of Theseus argument. I think there’s a reasonable argument that in fact we don’t have continuity of consciousness. Yes we are consistent persistent beings up to a point, but inky in the way that the ship of Theseus continues to be the same ship. I think of consciousness as being an activity. It’s something we sometimes do. We don’t do it in deep sleep, or when anaesthetised. But when we wake up is it the same consciousness? We remember being conscious previously, and that memory accords with what we experience ‘now’, but is that the same thing? I think it depends how you look at it. I drove my car yesterday. If I get in it today and start the engine, is it the same ‘running of the engine’ as yesterday?
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        > I think there’s a reasonable argument that in fact we don’t have continuity of consciousness. One argument that just came to me now: we already know we don't have continuity of vision - we go blind during saccades. We just don't notice, because the brain is happy to extrapolate from the last visual inputs, or otherwise completely make up what we see, going as far as screwing with our perception of time to fake continuity of experience. The same could be true for consciousness itself. Visual system is a proof that the brain can and does aggressively smoothen out discontinuous experiences. > I think it depends how you look at it. I drove my car yesterday. If I get in it today and start the engine, is it the same ‘running of the engine’ as yesterday? Exactly. It's a different "running of the engine" for the purposes of your typical conversation and thinking. It's a different "running" in terms of battery charge maintenance. It's the same "running" for general car maintenance. So, different/different/same. If you're on a trip, your engine dies, and you immediately restart it, it's same/different/same. If you drive your car after having it sit a month in a garage, it's different/different/different.

xmonkee 3y ago

I admit my language is squishy. Sometimes it helps point to what I'm trying to point to. And I know where you are coming from, as someone who was a materialist for much of my life. We are simply talking about different things. You are talking about the contents of consciousness - the things that get altered by physical processes. We don't need tests to establish that. When the sun rises, the contents of my consciousness change from black to orange, thus we know that physical processes can change the contents of my awareness. I am taking about consciousness itself. When the sun rises, the sky is the same, even it now seems orange.

jiggawatts 3y ago
> When the sun rises, the sky is the same, even it now seems orange. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. When the sun rises, the colour of the sky changes in ways measurable with physical devices and noticeable to animal and human eyes. It is not "the same" in any sense. Different photons traverse it, its temperature changes, ionisation of its gas molecules change, etc...
- xmonkee 3y ago
  >Different photons traverse it Yeah, but "it" is the same sky. The presence or absence of particles does not alter the sky itself. More accurately, space is independent of it's contents. Mind you, this is only a metaphor. Consciousness is not physical space. Just like physical space is the "space" of physical objects; Consciousness is the "space" of perception. You share almost nothing in common with who you were when you were 5 years old. Even if all the cells in your body have been replaced, and all your thoughts and your way of thinking itself has changed, you are still the same person. It's the same consciousness. That continuity is you. You are that consciousness. Do you see it?
  - simonh 3y ago
    That’s the Ship of Theseus argument. I think there’s a reasonable argument that in fact we don’t have continuity of consciousness. Yes we are consistent persistent beings up to a point, but inky in the way that the ship of Theseus continues to be the same ship. I think of consciousness as being an activity. It’s something we sometimes do. We don’t do it in deep sleep, or when anaesthetised. But when we wake up is it the same consciousness? We remember being conscious previously, and that memory accords with what we experience ‘now’, but is that the same thing? I think it depends how you look at it. I drove my car yesterday. If I get in it today and start the engine, is it the same ‘running of the engine’ as yesterday?
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      > I think there’s a reasonable argument that in fact we don’t have continuity of consciousness. One argument that just came to me now: we already know we don't have continuity of vision - we go blind during saccades. We just don't notice, because the brain is happy to extrapolate from the last visual inputs, or otherwise completely make up what we see, going as far as screwing with our perception of time to fake continuity of experience. The same could be true for consciousness itself. Visual system is a proof that the brain can and does aggressively smoothen out discontinuous experiences. > I think it depends how you look at it. I drove my car yesterday. If I get in it today and start the engine, is it the same ‘running of the engine’ as yesterday? Exactly. It's a different "running of the engine" for the purposes of your typical conversation and thinking. It's a different "running" in terms of battery charge maintenance. It's the same "running" for general car maintenance. So, different/different/same. If you're on a trip, your engine dies, and you immediately restart it, it's same/different/same. If you drive your car after having it sit a month in a garage, it's different/different/different.