4 ms·
Your criticism is all correct, in the sense that I haven't pinned down what I mean well enough to avoid it. Unfortunately, I mean by "subjective experience" is
by a_cardboard_box 2y ago
Your criticism is all correct, in the sense that I haven't pinned down what I mean well enough to avoid it. Unfortunately, I mean by "subjective experience" is ineffable. And the reason it's ineffable is also ineffable. It's something you can only understand if you have it and introspect on it. So you're entirely correct that this sequence of words isn't a valid definition, because there isn't one.
5) It may be a function of the past, just not one that can be given a mathematical definition. I should have said "defined" rather than "described".
- saltcured 2y agoI think you're getting bogged down in a very popular philosophical quagmire, which I feel is not a very useful place to linger. But, I can share a few landmarks I remember from past slogs. At a rhetorical level: Don't fixate on what math can or cannot describe. In the past, it could not describe states of matter, though they certainly existed. Now, we can describe and simulate such states pretty well. But describing, detecting, or simulating does not mean recreating. I don't think any of us currently "know" whether consciousness will be better described, detected, or simulated in the future. At an introspective level: When pondering the "experience of being me", don't forget to question the identity concept "me" as much as the experience part... Consider altered states of consciousness through drugs, disease, or brain injury. It can really expand your view here to empathize with someone who suffers one or more of these issues, where you can consider their illusory identity and experience.