4 ms·

Can the robot ever only scream? Then it's not suffering. Suffering is what creates movement, an internal impulse to an external action. Suffering can only exist

by wddkcs 2y ago

Can the robot ever only scream? Then it's not suffering. Suffering is what creates movement, an internal impulse to an external action. Suffering can only exist if there is any external and an internal, which I'd argue is also a valid definition of consciousness, but I couldn't imagine how to test it. In a test on suffering, if a subject has been inserted to fake consciousness, then we would still be measuring consciousness- we'd be measuring the consciousness of the mastetmind behind the robot/fake. Suffering isn't so easily dismissed, any conscious entity will tell you. I agree it is reductionist- that is the point of philosophy, to reduce to a point. RIP DD, you know he was a true philosopher because he came to a final point.

Arch-TK 2y ago
There are good definitions of consciousness which do not separate between "the external" and "the internal". I agree with these definitions, as a matter of experience there is only consciousness and the things which appear within consciousness (which includes thoughts, sights, feelings, pain, etc). But I think the point I would make is that there is no way for you to know if anyone or anything else is conscious. Our current ability to understand the mind is incapable of truly determining if even a fellow human is conscious or not.
- wddkcs 2y ago
  That level of skepticism implies skepticism of everything else. If you don't know if I'm conscious, then you don't 'know' anything. If you can't separate the internal and the external, then what is there to be conscious of? Subject is implied in the concept.
  - Arch-TK 2y ago
    Scepticism of everything is pretty much a given. Science is based on assumptions, most good scientists are well aware of this (the number of assumptions you have to take on faith varies, but most people can agree on somewhere between 3 and 5). Likewise, our understanding of the world is also founded heavily on assumptions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We can't know for sure if something else is conscious. Even scientifically speaking, even once you've accepted some assumptions, we genuinely aren't even close to having the tools necessary to determine if something is conscious or not. It's not even just scepticism at that point, it's fact. But also, we have the same problem with other large areas of medicine. We can only work on limited information and some assumptions. There's nothing wrong with that, it's better than nothing. Although you are free to decide not to accept any assumptions (unsurprisingly, this would lead to suffering and people generally do like to avoid suffering). To address your second point, dualism isn't implied and there's whole schools of meditation practice (which can and have successfully been made to be secular without losing anything) which focus on the underlying non-dualism of consciousness. The issue is that to really understand the non-dualism of consciousness, it requires actually getting to that state. This requires practice and effort. Without that, all you're left with is sometimes mystical sounding statements like: the feeling of having no head. As a matter of your direct experience, the thoughts in your mind, including the feeling of "I" or of a subject are entirely on the same level as your experience of sounds, sights, smells, touch, etc. They are just apparitions within consciousness. You might not believe me, you might be convinced I'm wrong, but all you need to do to find out for yourself is to truly pay attention to the contents of your mind.

by wddkcs 2y ago

Arch-TK 2y ago

There are good definitions of consciousness which do not separate between "the external" and "the internal". I agree with these definitions, as a matter of experience there is only consciousness and the things which appear within consciousness (which includes thoughts, sights, feelings, pain, etc). But I think the point I would make is that there is no way for you to know if anyone or anything else is conscious. Our current ability to understand the mind is incapable of truly determining if even a fellow human is conscious or not.

wddkcs 2y ago
That level of skepticism implies skepticism of everything else. If you don't know if I'm conscious, then you don't 'know' anything. If you can't separate the internal and the external, then what is there to be conscious of? Subject is implied in the concept.
- Arch-TK 2y ago
  Scepticism of everything is pretty much a given. Science is based on assumptions, most good scientists are well aware of this (the number of assumptions you have to take on faith varies, but most people can agree on somewhere between 3 and 5). Likewise, our understanding of the world is also founded heavily on assumptions. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. We can't know for sure if something else is conscious. Even scientifically speaking, even once you've accepted some assumptions, we genuinely aren't even close to having the tools necessary to determine if something is conscious or not. It's not even just scepticism at that point, it's fact. But also, we have the same problem with other large areas of medicine. We can only work on limited information and some assumptions. There's nothing wrong with that, it's better than nothing. Although you are free to decide not to accept any assumptions (unsurprisingly, this would lead to suffering and people generally do like to avoid suffering). To address your second point, dualism isn't implied and there's whole schools of meditation practice (which can and have successfully been made to be secular without losing anything) which focus on the underlying non-dualism of consciousness. The issue is that to really understand the non-dualism of consciousness, it requires actually getting to that state. This requires practice and effort. Without that, all you're left with is sometimes mystical sounding statements like: the feeling of having no head. As a matter of your direct experience, the thoughts in your mind, including the feeling of "I" or of a subject are entirely on the same level as your experience of sounds, sights, smells, touch, etc. They are just apparitions within consciousness. You might not believe me, you might be convinced I'm wrong, but all you need to do to find out for yourself is to truly pay attention to the contents of your mind.