4 ms·

Definition: Consciousness is those parts of the workings of the brain that are available to introspection. End definition. People so love to throw all kin

Definition: Consciousness is those parts of the workings of the brain that are available to introspection. End definition. People so love to throw all kinds of babble under the heading of consciousness, so there's scant chance that people will agree on any kind of definition, let alone this one. But it's what I've been using, and I find that it makes all the supposedly hard questions about consciousness very simple to answer.

kmod 3y ago
`ps` is a way of introspecting about a computer "brain". Is that consciousness?
- gfody 3y ago
  sort of. ambiguity is a nice feature of language. it wouldn't confuse anyone to say you were digging into your computer's consciousness.
hungryforcodes 3y ago
But this is a totally meaningless definition. It says nothing about the phenominalogical experience of consciousness in a meaningful way and contains nothing that is scientifically falsifiable.
- munch117 3y ago
  > contains nothing that is scientifically falsifiable It's observable. You simply ask people what they have been or are thinking or sensing. If they are able to relate that, then, by the definition, they were conscious about it. Of course they might be lying or misremember; introspection is not intersubjective, and therefore hard to create reproducible experiments around. But that doesn't mean introspective information doesn't exist. > says nothing about the phenominalogical experience of consciousness in a meaningful way What kind of experience is observable, except by introspection? The only observations of experiences that anyone can have are through either one's own introspection, or through what others have related of their introspection. If you are to say that you have had a "phenomenological experience of consciousness" that you want me to explain, then you are giving an introspective report of a brain process that left an imprint that you can now describe. If the experience was not available to introspection, then you wouldn't be asking, because you wouldn't realise there was an experience at all.
  - hungryforcodes 3y ago
    OK
atlantic 3y ago
So you're taking the question under investigation - whether consciousness is fundamental, or whether it is an epiphenomenon, possibly of brain function - and making one of the possible answers into an axiom of your system? How does that solve anything? You're just imposing a particular hypothesis before investigation even gets started.
- munch117 3y ago
  It fits with everyday uses of the word "conscious". Let's say someone is lying motionless on the ground. You then say they've "lost consciousness". Later, they wake up and object that they were not unconscious. "I could hear everything you said. I was paralysed, but conscious the whole time." Being able to relate their experience is what proves that they were conscious. Someone will say that they "made a conscious decision". Same thing. They can relate the thought process behind the decision. Someone will say: "I got lost on the way to the airport. I must have unconsciously wanted to stay home." In this case they tell you that they made a decision, but they cannot relate the thought process behind the decision, and they don't believe that at any point they could have. It is a decision not available to introspection, therefore "unconscious". > the question under investigation What investigation? Which observation is in need of explanation? All I have is the introspective observation of myself thinking, and reports from others making similar introspective observations. If you are going to say that "consciousness" needs explanation, then your question is ill-formed, because your question contains a word that has no definition and no agreed upon meaning.
geysersam 3y ago
> makes all the supposedly hard questions about consciousness very simple to answer. I'm intrigued!
- munch117 3y ago
  The answers may disappoint you, though. Let's try some. > Is a dog conscious? Probably yes. Dog are social animals, so it makes sense that they would have the ability to reflect on earlier events, including a memory of what they were thinking. Since we don't have a common language so we can hear their introspective reports, it's hard to confirm, though. > Is ChatGPT conscious? No, it does not make observations of its own mental state. When it appears to do so, it is reconstructing plausible observations from its training set of others making such observations. That's just the specific design of ChatGPT, though. It doesn't have an "inner thought" layer. Other AI designs could easily be conscious; it's just that the best ones we've so far managed to build, don't have it. > Is ps conscious? No, it doesn't think. > Does consciousness survive death? Obviously no. It's a property of the living brain. Somehow, that was way too easy to answer for such a big question. There's this expectation that the answer should cover all the mysteries of life and death. It doesn't. It just answers a specific question about consciousness, which, with my definition, is a simple question with a simple answer.

kmod 3y ago

`ps` is a way of introspecting about a computer "brain". Is that consciousness?

gfody 3y ago
sort of. ambiguity is a nice feature of language. it wouldn't confuse anyone to say you were digging into your computer's consciousness.

hungryforcodes 3y ago

But this is a totally meaningless definition. It says nothing about the phenominalogical experience of consciousness in a meaningful way and contains nothing that is scientifically falsifiable.

munch117 3y ago
> contains nothing that is scientifically falsifiable It's observable. You simply ask people what they have been or are thinking or sensing. If they are able to relate that, then, by the definition, they were conscious about it. Of course they might be lying or misremember; introspection is not intersubjective, and therefore hard to create reproducible experiments around. But that doesn't mean introspective information doesn't exist. > says nothing about the phenominalogical experience of consciousness in a meaningful way What kind of experience is observable, except by introspection? The only observations of experiences that anyone can have are through either one's own introspection, or through what others have related of their introspection. If you are to say that you have had a "phenomenological experience of consciousness" that you want me to explain, then you are giving an introspective report of a brain process that left an imprint that you can now describe. If the experience was not available to introspection, then you wouldn't be asking, because you wouldn't realise there was an experience at all.
- hungryforcodes 3y ago
  OK

atlantic 3y ago

So you're taking the question under investigation - whether consciousness is fundamental, or whether it is an epiphenomenon, possibly of brain function - and making one of the possible answers into an axiom of your system? How does that solve anything? You're just imposing a particular hypothesis before investigation even gets started.

munch117 3y ago
It fits with everyday uses of the word "conscious". Let's say someone is lying motionless on the ground. You then say they've "lost consciousness". Later, they wake up and object that they were not unconscious. "I could hear everything you said. I was paralysed, but conscious the whole time." Being able to relate their experience is what proves that they were conscious. Someone will say that they "made a conscious decision". Same thing. They can relate the thought process behind the decision. Someone will say: "I got lost on the way to the airport. I must have unconsciously wanted to stay home." In this case they tell you that they made a decision, but they cannot relate the thought process behind the decision, and they don't believe that at any point they could have. It is a decision not available to introspection, therefore "unconscious". > the question under investigation What investigation? Which observation is in need of explanation? All I have is the introspective observation of myself thinking, and reports from others making similar introspective observations. If you are going to say that "consciousness" needs explanation, then your question is ill-formed, because your question contains a word that has no definition and no agreed upon meaning.

geysersam 3y ago

> makes all the supposedly hard questions about consciousness very simple to answer. I'm intrigued!

munch117 3y ago
The answers may disappoint you, though. Let's try some. > Is a dog conscious? Probably yes. Dog are social animals, so it makes sense that they would have the ability to reflect on earlier events, including a memory of what they were thinking. Since we don't have a common language so we can hear their introspective reports, it's hard to confirm, though. > Is ChatGPT conscious? No, it does not make observations of its own mental state. When it appears to do so, it is reconstructing plausible observations from its training set of others making such observations. That's just the specific design of ChatGPT, though. It doesn't have an "inner thought" layer. Other AI designs could easily be conscious; it's just that the best ones we've so far managed to build, don't have it. > Is ps conscious? No, it doesn't think. > Does consciousness survive death? Obviously no. It's a property of the living brain. Somehow, that was way too easy to answer for such a big question. There's this expectation that the answer should cover all the mysteries of life and death. It doesn't. It just answers a specific question about consciousness, which, with my definition, is a simple question with a simple answer.