3 ms·

> the idea that consciousness is a mechanical process somehow produced by atoms. Where do you think consciousness comes from?

by squigz 3y ago

barfbagginus 3y ago
Let's suppose consciousness comes from the gurganath. The gurganath is a metaphysical being that is not made of matter or any substance we can understand. It has a big belly. And when it slaps its belly in either anger or glee, a side effect is that whole universes full of conscious beings come into being, experience a few billions of years in subjective time, them annihilate themselves. That's consciousness as a metaphysical epiphenomenon of the gurganath. Or consider the Squigloog. The Squigloog is a "sensorial bundle" - an abstract collection of all possible sense experiences - including conscious ones. It is a static and unchanging construct existing outside of time or space. Although time does not pass for the Squigloog, it encodes all possible experiences including ones where the subject appears to experience time. That's consciousness if it were supported by the Squigloog. The first theory is akin to theism - the gurganath is basically God. The second theory is similar to Hume's Bundle Theory. Although I am mainly a materialist for pragmatic reasons, these are non-material theories of consciousness. There is no way for me to falsify either of them. And there may be no way to prove that material is the cause of consciousness. So I would say that we should be tolerant of people who have non-materialist theories of consciousness. Even if they're not very tolerant of materialists. Any one of us could be right.
akomtu 3y ago
First we need to define it. I suspect that the failure to define consciousness or explain what our mind does is rooted in the unproven fact that some ideas cannot be reasoned about, cannot be expressed in thoughts, they can only be understood from within, and that understanding can be transferred directly from one to another in a conversation, that would light up the understanding in the listener. The words alone in that conversation aren't sufficient, they simply make the listener more receptive. Using a metaphor, I cannot give you fire over a chat, no matter how well I describe that fire, but I can give it in a face to face interaction, and words can facilitate that. Even though we cannot see the entire elephant, we can discuss its ears, tail and other features. I believe that consciousness has something to do with reflection, internal or external, that it's a property of some process, and thus cannot be represented in a discrete state or expressed as a discrete step-by-step algorithm. It doesn't mean AI can't simulate a fake consciousness, something that looks fake only upon close examination. Mind is a separate thing from consciousness, but it can be conscious or not. And consciousness isn't the same as life.

> the idea that consciousness is a mechanical process somehow produced by atoms. Where do you think consciousness comes from?

by squigz 3y ago

> the idea that consciousness is a mechanical process somehow produced by atoms. Where do you think consciousness comes from?

barfbagginus 3y ago

Let's suppose consciousness comes from the gurganath. The gurganath is a metaphysical being that is not made of matter or any substance we can understand. It has a big belly. And when it slaps its belly in either anger or glee, a side effect is that whole universes full of conscious beings come into being, experience a few billions of years in subjective time, them annihilate themselves. That's consciousness as a metaphysical epiphenomenon of the gurganath. Or consider the Squigloog. The Squigloog is a "sensorial bundle" - an abstract collection of all possible sense experiences - including conscious ones. It is a static and unchanging construct existing outside of time or space. Although time does not pass for the Squigloog, it encodes all possible experiences including ones where the subject appears to experience time. That's consciousness if it were supported by the Squigloog. The first theory is akin to theism - the gurganath is basically God. The second theory is similar to Hume's Bundle Theory. Although I am mainly a materialist for pragmatic reasons, these are non-material theories of consciousness. There is no way for me to falsify either of them. And there may be no way to prove that material is the cause of consciousness. So I would say that we should be tolerant of people who have non-materialist theories of consciousness. Even if they're not very tolerant of materialists. Any one of us could be right.

akomtu 3y ago

First we need to define it. I suspect that the failure to define consciousness or explain what our mind does is rooted in the unproven fact that some ideas cannot be reasoned about, cannot be expressed in thoughts, they can only be understood from within, and that understanding can be transferred directly from one to another in a conversation, that would light up the understanding in the listener. The words alone in that conversation aren't sufficient, they simply make the listener more receptive. Using a metaphor, I cannot give you fire over a chat, no matter how well I describe that fire, but I can give it in a face to face interaction, and words can facilitate that. Even though we cannot see the entire elephant, we can discuss its ears, tail and other features. I believe that consciousness has something to do with reflection, internal or external, that it's a property of some process, and thus cannot be represented in a discrete state or expressed as a discrete step-by-step algorithm. It doesn't mean AI can't simulate a fake consciousness, something that looks fake only upon close examination. Mind is a separate thing from consciousness, but it can be conscious or not. And consciousness isn't the same as life.