4 ms·

Seth's belief in a materialistic[1] explanation for consciousness and the human condition is something I subscribe to, too. My view is that we are simply very

Seth's belief in a materialistic[1] explanation for consciousness and the human condition is something I subscribe to, too. My view is that we are simply very complex, giant state machines built on top of ever-smaller state machines; all our thoughts, perceptions, and individual realities are the product of neuron connections in our CNS, and the various inputs to it throughout our lives. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

perfmode 3y ago
how can we ever know if matter exists beyond the conscious experience of it?
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  Isn't that merely agnosticism?
  - namaria 3y ago
    No, that's physics. Last year the Nobel prize was awarded for work providing evidence for the fundamental non-locality of the universe. Objective materialism seems more and more untenable on the face of hard evidence.
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      That work didn't demonstrate nonlocality, it debunked hidden variables theory.
      - namaria 3y ago
        You're right, I went on a news article full of misconceptions. Thank you for pointing it out.
  - anon84873628 3y ago
    The secular version of it, yeah. I believe the more academic framing is called epistemic constructivism or idealism or something.
anon84873628 3y ago
This means that our conscious experience (qualia) are the result of physical processes. Well then, what makes brains so special? Can other complex systems have qualia? Do they even have to be complex - how about a sliding scale of consciousness? Personally I think it would be strange for the universe to have "neural chauvinism" or some sort of complexity threshold. More likely, qualia are somehow innate and pervasive in the universe. I believe the saying goes: pure physicalism necessitates panpsychism.
- GoblinSlayer 3y ago
  It's more a matter of functionality rather than only complexity. Functionality can be not implemented just fine.
  - anon84873628 3y ago
    Which functionality produces qualia? It certainly seems related to sensory processing, but that still boils down to nerves and neurons. Does it require a notion of "self"? The end result is that physical systems are producing a completely non-physical and subjective phenomenon.
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      The functionality of subjective experience. Some higher animals don't pass the mirror test, but have consciousness.
      - anon84873628 3y ago
        So what does it take to have subjective experience? Why do animals (whether higher or lower) have consciousness, but not plants?
- dale_glass 3y ago
  > This means that our conscious experience (qualia) are the result of physical processes. Well then, what makes brains so special? I don't think they are > Can other complex systems have qualia? Do they even have to be complex - how about a sliding scale of consciousness? How about most any modern computing system? We can reproduce the same features with layers of control, permissions and abstraction. Suppose a system consisting of two modules. The vision module is hooked up to a camera. The AI module has a low bandwidth, serial text communication with the vision module and a fixed API. It has similar connections to other subsystems. User -> AI: "This is a ball. Its color is red." AI -> Vision: [ color of current thing = "red" ] AI -> User: Understood (later) User -> AI: "What is the color of this ball?" AI -> User: Let's see... AI -> Vision: [ get color of current thing ] Vision -> AI: "red" AI -> User: "The ball is red" A system made in this way can learn a ball is red, can then apply the knowledge to other red objects, but would be completely unable to describe what "red" looks like. That is locked up deep in the guts of the vision module, and the AI "conscious mind" has no access to that. Different implementations of the vision module might use the same internal representations or might not. It's even conceivable that you could swap the vision module for something different (eg, a camera wired RGB or BRG), crossing the wires, and it being impossible for the AI to tell.
fsckboy 3y ago
> Seth's belief in a materialistic explanation for consciousness and the human condition is something I subscribe to, too. My view is that we are simply very complex, giant state machines... professing your articles of faith about what we are is not "explaining" consciousness, you're simply doing what the Vatican does. but since we're announcing our views, my view is that Materialism is completely wrong, rather, matter is something our consciousness imagines to explain perceptions like momentum and collisions. In my view, the nature of the universe is informational, mathematical, and computational, and the fact that what we call electrons repel each other does not require material existence, just as what you see in a video game does not require material existence, just computation. There could be an isomorphic material universe underlying our informational mathematical computational universe, but it's not necessary, and an abstract universe is much closer to abstract thought, so while I haven't explained consciousness any more than you have, it seems like a better way to go to me.
- delta_p_delta_x 3y ago
  > you're simply doing what the Vatican does The Vatican and its followers tells everyone else to 'believe in' what they do; I am simply 'announcing my view' that I subscribe to materialism. > does not require material existence, just computation But there is material existence. There are bits representing the vertices, textures, etc. inside some storage device. The computation itself is represented in some material form, whether it be some add/sub/xor instruction and its binary representation in storage/memory, or written out on paper, or stored in our memories. There are frames transmitted as signals through the wires; there are photons emitted by the monitor. All material, physical representations of a video game. For a better example... The imagery that one might perceive during a hallucination might not be real, but the hallucination itself is: it is electrical impulses through neurons which are producing said hallucination. The abstract universe that you claim is matter and therefore reality cannot exist without material 'hardware'.
2-718-281-828 3y ago
> that we are simply very complex but you can't argue that you feel conscious right? your perspective isn't even addressing that question. it's like asking the question "how can a ferrari go 200 mph?" and you answer "my perspective is that it simply has four wheels set in motion by a motor burning gas".

perfmode 3y ago

how can we ever know if matter exists beyond the conscious experience of it?

GoblinSlayer 3y ago
Isn't that merely agnosticism?
- namaria 3y ago
  No, that's physics. Last year the Nobel prize was awarded for work providing evidence for the fundamental non-locality of the universe. Objective materialism seems more and more untenable on the face of hard evidence.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    That work didn't demonstrate nonlocality, it debunked hidden variables theory.
    - namaria 3y ago
      You're right, I went on a news article full of misconceptions. Thank you for pointing it out.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  The secular version of it, yeah. I believe the more academic framing is called epistemic constructivism or idealism or something.

anon84873628 3y ago

This means that our conscious experience (qualia) are the result of physical processes. Well then, what makes brains so special? Can other complex systems have qualia? Do they even have to be complex - how about a sliding scale of consciousness? Personally I think it would be strange for the universe to have "neural chauvinism" or some sort of complexity threshold. More likely, qualia are somehow innate and pervasive in the universe. I believe the saying goes: pure physicalism necessitates panpsychism.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago
It's more a matter of functionality rather than only complexity. Functionality can be not implemented just fine.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  Which functionality produces qualia? It certainly seems related to sensory processing, but that still boils down to nerves and neurons. Does it require a notion of "self"? The end result is that physical systems are producing a completely non-physical and subjective phenomenon.
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    The functionality of subjective experience. Some higher animals don't pass the mirror test, but have consciousness.
    - anon84873628 3y ago
      So what does it take to have subjective experience? Why do animals (whether higher or lower) have consciousness, but not plants?
dale_glass 3y ago
> This means that our conscious experience (qualia) are the result of physical processes. Well then, what makes brains so special? I don't think they are > Can other complex systems have qualia? Do they even have to be complex - how about a sliding scale of consciousness? How about most any modern computing system? We can reproduce the same features with layers of control, permissions and abstraction. Suppose a system consisting of two modules. The vision module is hooked up to a camera. The AI module has a low bandwidth, serial text communication with the vision module and a fixed API. It has similar connections to other subsystems. User -> AI: "This is a ball. Its color is red." AI -> Vision: [ color of current thing = "red" ] AI -> User: Understood (later) User -> AI: "What is the color of this ball?" AI -> User: Let's see... AI -> Vision: [ get color of current thing ] Vision -> AI: "red" AI -> User: "The ball is red" A system made in this way can learn a ball is red, can then apply the knowledge to other red objects, but would be completely unable to describe what "red" looks like. That is locked up deep in the guts of the vision module, and the AI "conscious mind" has no access to that. Different implementations of the vision module might use the same internal representations or might not. It's even conceivable that you could swap the vision module for something different (eg, a camera wired RGB or BRG), crossing the wires, and it being impossible for the AI to tell.

fsckboy 3y ago

> Seth's belief in a materialistic explanation for consciousness and the human condition is something I subscribe to, too. My view is that we are simply very complex, giant state machines... professing your articles of faith about what we are is not "explaining" consciousness, you're simply doing what the Vatican does. but since we're announcing our views, my view is that Materialism is completely wrong, rather, matter is something our consciousness imagines to explain perceptions like momentum and collisions. In my view, the nature of the universe is informational, mathematical, and computational, and the fact that what we call electrons repel each other does not require material existence, just as what you see in a video game does not require material existence, just computation. There could be an isomorphic material universe underlying our informational mathematical computational universe, but it's not necessary, and an abstract universe is much closer to abstract thought, so while I haven't explained consciousness any more than you have, it seems like a better way to go to me.

delta_p_delta_x 3y ago
> you're simply doing what the Vatican does The Vatican and its followers tells everyone else to 'believe in' what they do; I am simply 'announcing my view' that I subscribe to materialism. > does not require material existence, just computation But there is material existence. There are bits representing the vertices, textures, etc. inside some storage device. The computation itself is represented in some material form, whether it be some add/sub/xor instruction and its binary representation in storage/memory, or written out on paper, or stored in our memories. There are frames transmitted as signals through the wires; there are photons emitted by the monitor. All material, physical representations of a video game. For a better example... The imagery that one might perceive during a hallucination might not be real, but the hallucination itself is: it is electrical impulses through neurons which are producing said hallucination. The abstract universe that you claim is matter and therefore reality cannot exist without material 'hardware'.

2-718-281-828 3y ago

> that we are simply very complex but you can't argue that you feel conscious right? your perspective isn't even addressing that question. it's like asking the question "how can a ferrari go 200 mph?" and you answer "my perspective is that it simply has four wheels set in motion by a motor burning gas".