4 ms·
I read Julian Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness as a young man and was convinced for the longest time that consciousness is just a type of information processing
by hliyan 3y ago
I read Julian Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness as a young man and was convinced for the longest time that consciousness is just a type of information processing (or a type of wetware program) that creates a mental model of the external world, and that it is based on language, and therefore only accessible to humans, and does not require any further explanation.
I'm no longer quite so sure. The possibilities are that consciousness:
1) Is binary or exists in a continuous spectrum
2) Is fundamental property (panpsychism) or emergent
If it is a continuous, fundamental property, then what we experience as qualia (i.e. subjective, conscious experience) are merely a higher order version of any reaction of anything to any other thing (from a glass shattering due to blunt force, to a venus flytrap closing in response to an insect). It also implies that there may be other intelligent species out there with a much higher order of consciousness (not merely intelligence) capable of higher levels of conscious experience. In which case, we have a serious problem with the way we are treating some animals.
- llamaimperative 3y agoHas this author ever interacted with e.g. a monkey or a dog? Utterly insane to think consciousness is dependent upon language, oh and also good luck defining language: lots of animals communicate perfectly sufficiently for their purposes. Is gesture not a language? Then are ASL speakers (?) not conscious? Glad you arrived at the right question nonetheless. Personally I think panpsychism is (inconveniently and rather alarmingly) the only viable theory of consciousness I’ve ever heard. There’s just no sensible place to draw a line between conscious and not conscious in the development of an organism or in the development of a species.
- cageface 3y agoIt doesn't prove anything but I do think it's very interesting that many people report feeling part of a universal and all pervasive consciousness as part of a psychedelic experience.
- tsimionescu 3y agoLanguage has pretty notable differences from animal communication that are actually very well studied. One aspect is that language can string together small particles to produce arbitrarily complex meanings. In contrast, most animal communication is extremely simplistic - typically one sound or gesture corresponds with one piece of meaning, and the order or number of repetitions has no additional meanings. There may be some exceptions or at least grey areas (whale song, dolphin sound+dance, bee dances, some apes and birds), but the vast majority of animals have an extremely simplistic communication scheme. Another huge difference between animal communication and human language is that animals communicate in response to direct internal or external stimuli (hungry - > chirp, see dangerous animal -> distress call). In contrast, humans communicate about much more complex feelings, and can choose when to exteriorize their language use. Note that humans also communicate in ways that aren't language. Our "body language", our cries of pain, baby's cries, grimaces, winking, etc are the equivalent of animal communication and are not language. Sign langauge is absolutely langue though, and you'll notice it fully ticks the two boxes I was mentioning earlier.
- yterdy 3y agoPrairie dogs are another example that likely goes against your understanding. They also serve as an example of how we might miss complex communication in other species: researchers had to slow down their chirps and calls in order to find the patterns that made up their syntax and grammar. I imagine that LLMs will be useful in the future in helping us to find patterns in behavior or vocalization that might serve as language or language-like communication. Also, in response to your second point: most people with domesticated pets could give examples of deception or signalling intent.
- tsimionescu 3y agoPerhaps indeed we are missing a lot of more complex communications. We will maybe learn more with LLMs, we'll see. Related to deception or intent - those are still at best second order reactions to internal/external stimuli. The fact remains that dogs or even chimps don't, for example, tell stories to their friends about what a fun ball they saw yesterday or how sad they've been last week.
- oezi 3y agoPanpsychism doesn't strike me as particular helpful. Everything is emergent once you move beyond the lowest levels of physics. I think the best approach to consciousness is to consider it a feedback loop of certain brain processes into perception circuits. This is why consciousness is often tied to senses such as hearing / language and imagery. It certainly is continous as it develops even in humans.
- hobs 3y agoWhat's unhelpful about it? Noting that everything is emergent is a simple way to understand that its unlikely that our consciousness is not, and to empathize with the rest of the universe more. A comatose person can still have thoughts and consciousness, even trapped in their mind, though your definition of perception circuits might allow this. But even having "senses" is not a requirement for thought imo, it just gives it a framing that makes a lot more sense to us.
- oezi 3y agoMy understanding was that panpsychism means that consciousness isn't emergent (for instance from scaling neuronal tissue), but a fundamental property of space (something astral or soul like). I am 100% in alignment with you on a comatose person being able to be 100% conscious.
- hobs 3y agoAh, well, that's just mysticism then, not that it can't be true but how TF would you know?