3 ms·
Tl;dr We shouldn't care. Is my partner conscious? My dog? Actually, I don't know. I can say that I experience myself as conscious. In our daily interactions w
by mo_42 3y ago
Tl;dr We shouldn't care.
Is my partner conscious? My dog? Actually, I don't know. I can say that I experience myself as conscious.
In our daily interactions we never ask such questions. Last week, I hired a new programmer. We checked the CV and the code challenge. We invited the candidate to see how they get around with the team etc. At no point, we asked if they're conscious.
I think our brains are machines for predicting what happens next. Therefore, a large brain makes sense because it can simulate the world more precisely and make better predictions. One mistake of this simulation is that the brain simulates us as a conscious agent who can make their own decisions and act in the world. In contrast, we are just machines who operate by the laws of quantum mechanics.
Maybe evolution set up this illusion on purpose so that we don't get depressed and kill ourselves.
- datascienced 3y agoThe only career where you are concerned about if someone is conscious is boxing.
- inatreecrown2 3y agomaybe doctors and nurses are too, if they are concerned for the live of you?
- datascienced 3y agotrue. maybe stage hypnotists too
- keybored 3y ago> I think our brains are machines for predicting what happens next. Technologist thinks that humans are machines (breaking news) > Therefore, a large brain makes sense because it can simulate the world more precisely and make better predictions. Whence consciousness? > One mistake of this simulation is that the brain simulates us as a conscious agent who can make their own decisions and act in the world. A mistake? Like a random mutation (consciousness) which just persisted because there was no evolutionary pressure to get rid of it? Or did it persist in everyone? Maybe half of humanity is conscious while the other half is not? They operate exactly the same except the conscious half wastes some kilojoules fretting over awareness. A machine doesn’t need to simulate being aware of decision-making. That’s cruft. Wasted cycles. Maybe you’re reasoning backwards from the human-centric idea that “making decisions” requires awareness. But then you incoherently assert that humans are machines, and machines don’t need consciousness to make decisions. > Maybe evolution set up this illusion on purpose so that we don't get depressed and kill ourselves. So (if I am understanding correctly), consciousness was a random mutation of a complex organism. Of course someone can be conscious and not feel like they have free will. Like they are just along for the ride. But this is “depressing” somehow.[1] So now a free will illusion mutation has to occur in order to protect the machine from self-killing. Seems convoluted. [1] But why? 80% of the HN philosophers seem fine with it.
- bmitc 3y ago>> I think our brains are machines for predicting what happens next. > Technologist thinks that humans are machines (breaking news) While I also dismiss or at least be careful of the inherent biases of technocratic viewpoints, humans and life in general are very much made of many types of machines. Take a look at these videos: https://youtu.be/wJyUtbn0O5Y https://youtu.be/wJyUtbn0O5Y https://youtu.be/7Hk9jct2ozY https://youtu.be/7Hk9jct2ozY I.e., life is insane and bewildering.
- keybored 3y agoWell actually :nerd_face: technocracy is a completely different thing (the belief that the educated specialists should rule society)
- binary132 3y agojust what a philosophical zombie would say