8 ms·

Two things I'm absolutely convinced of at this point. 1. Consciousness is primitive. That is, interior experience is a fundamental property of the universe:

Two things I'm absolutely convinced of at this point. 1. Consciousness is primitive. That is, interior experience is a fundamental property of the universe: any information system in the universe that has certain properties has an interior experience, 2. Within the human population, interior experience varies vastly between individuals. Assertion 1 is informed though reading, introspection, meditation, and psychedelic experience. I've transitions the whole spectrum of being a die hard physical materialist to high conviction that consciousness is primitive. I'm not traditionally panpsychic, which most commonly postulates that every bit of matter has some level of conscious experience. I really think information and information processing is the fundamental unit (realized as certain configurations of matter) and certain information system's (e.g. our brain) have an interior experience. Assertion 2 is informed through discussion with others. Denial of Chalmer's hard problem doesn't make sense to me. Like it seems logically flawed to argue that consciousness is emergent. Interior experience can't "emerge" from the traditional laws of physics, it's like a nonsense argument. The observation that folks really challenge this makes me deeply believe that the interior experience across humans is not at all uniform. The interior experience of somebody who vehemently denies the hard problem must be so much different from my interior experience to the extend that the divide can't be bridged.

tanepiper 2y ago
You word my position here too. 20's - a rabid Dawkins reading Athiest. 40's - I think Dawkins is an idiot and my favourite book is "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson"
- tasty_freeze 2y ago
  You don't come off as being a nuanced thinker if those are your two positions on Dawkins. I can understand disagreeing with him, but calling him an idiot impugns you more than him.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Assuming your model of him is correct. How many videos of him "destroying" theists have you watched on TikTok? I've seen 100+, and agree that he's an idiot, amazingly so. Watch carefully the words he uses as he "proves" his "facts".
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Have you considered that TikTok may not be a full representation of the human being? It is one thing to say someone spews bullshit on tiktok, and another to claim them an idiot. Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy?
      - mistermann 2y ago
        A full representation is not necessary. If a Human has errors in any single sentence, they have errors in their corresponding model. These details are the essence of the very point of contention. > Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy? If one is claiming logical and epistemic superiority, as he literally and explicitly does, and arrogantly so (followed by roars of applause from the audience), I will judge him by those standards. I will also mock him, because he is sooooo dumb, while he chastises others for the same thing (which he is typically not wrong about, to be fair). Live by the sword, die by the sword.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Would you agree that this may make the error of judging them by their worst output, and not their best, or even average?
        mistermann 2y ago
        Oh yes, if I could bet money on it, I'd say it's even likely! However, I think this touches on an under realized phenomenon: the difference between what people say when they are "speaking their mind" in literature/studies (slow, deliberate, careful error checking, often including other people), versus the more real unfiltered version you get that comes out during real time speech (which emerges from cognition). In the atheism community in particular, there are some very strange beliefs about human beliefs. For example, a recurring claim I hear from atheists is that what object level atheists believe, in fact, is the formal definition of atheism: merely/only a lack of belief in God(s), but no negative belief. The silliness of this should be obvious, but I've had no luck getting any of them to realize (or even contemplate) this, not even one person. The irony is mind boggling. (The same phenomenon exists in science as well interestingly, which is part of why I claim it is a fact that it is an underpowered methodology/ideology for navigating reality, a false prophet if you will.) I propose that if he (and all other people) didn't actually hold these flawed beliefs in the first place, they wouldn't come out during real time speech... or if they did ~accidentally, they should be realized and corrected (which scientists in public venues tend to do, begrudgingly). All people suffer from this problem, and I think our culture buries it, for reasons I have no theory about (some sort of psychological game theory maybe?). Another way of putting it: if you only consume content from someone that is written offline, you are getting a misrepresentation of that person. I think this is a huge deal, yet another important part of reality that our culture behaves as if it is not there. We are like teenagers at best on an absolute scale imho.
  - tanepiper 2y ago
    Well my position comes from some of the positions Dawkins has publicly stated, when he really didn't need to speak up in those circles. Maybe you find 'idiot' a strong word? The problem with someone like Dawkins is he is 'clever' - someone who doesn't understand that in his position it's better to not wield it like a weapon. This is why I prefer someone like Sean Carroll, who absolutely entertains some bonkers ideas, but never from a position of superiority or dismissal - but rather challenges it rationally.
carrozo 2y ago
What are your thoughts on what Donald Hoffman has been pursuing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman
- brotchie 2y ago
  Compelling. I really buy his argument about our interior experience being a multimodal user interface (MUI) over stimulus from some information system. We describe the universe in terms of a 4D space-time with forces and particles, but this is really the MUI we've constructed (or evolution has constructed) that maximizes our predictive power when "actuating" our MUI (e.g interacting with that external system). I haven't thought about this before, and kinda rejected it on first reading of Hoffman's work, but think I grok it now. Because our internal experience is a MUI, and that MUI (4D space time, particles) can't be considered a "true reality", it's just an interface, then other conscious entities are more "real" than our MUI. That is, the fundamental true reality that really matters is other conscious agents (e.g. Conscious Realism). A slightly more wacky theory I like to think about is how this intersects with the simulation argument. If our reality isn't ring 0 (e.g. there's an outer reality that is actually time-stepping our universe), then the conscious interior experience we have in our reality may be due to the properties of reality in the outer universe "leaking through" into our simulation. This actually aligns well with the Hoffman's MUI argument. We live in some information processing system. Through evolution we've constructed a MUI that we see as 4D space time. But this doesn't at all reflect the true reality of our universe being a process simulated in the ring 0 reality. Conscious Realism then arises because ring 0 reality has properties that imbue pattern of information processing with interior experience.
CuriouslyC 2y ago
Assertion 1 is quite weak. The stronger version is that consciousness is the mechanism by which the universe processes information, and choice (as we experience it) is the mechanism by which the universe updates its state. Under this assertion, the laws of physics are nothing more than an application of the central limit theorem on the distribution of conscious choices made by all the little bits of the universe involved in the system. This view also implies that space and reality are "virtual" or "imaginary" much like George Berkeley suggested 300 years ago.
- brotchie 2y ago
  I'm starting to buy this argument after rejecting it before (primarily thought ignorance of the meaning of "consciousness is the mechanism by which the universe processes information"). Also intersects with Hoffman's argument re: Conscious Realism. The only real thing is conscious experience, and "reality" as used in common parlance is just a multimodal user interface constructed to maximize evolutionary fitness.
naasking 2y ago
> The interior experience of somebody who vehemently denies the hard problem must be so much different from my interior experience to the extend that the divide can't be bridged. Internal experiences are probably a bit different, but it's a mistake to think this is the only reason to deny the hard problem. We all experience perceptual illusions of various types, auditory, visual, etc. In other words, perceptions are useful but deeply flawed. Why do you think your perceptions of subjective, qualitative experience doesn't have these same issues? I see no factual reason to treat them differently, therefore I simply don't naively trust what my perception of conscious experience suggests might be true, eg. that subjective experience is cohesive, without gaps, ineliminable, ineffable, etc. Once you accept this fact, the hard problem starts looking a lot like a god of the gaps.
- kkoncevicius 2y ago
  To me it seems your reply is conflating consciousness with perception. The perception is the consciousness. Auditory illusion, for example, is just signals to the senses and your senses miss-representing the inputs. The consciousness is the part which is aware of these sensations. If they are accurate or not - is not the point. The point is that you are aware of them.
  - naasking 2y ago
    > The consciousness is the part which is aware of these sensations Why are you so sure this awareness is not itself a perception generated internally? A higher order perception parameterized/modulated by other perceptions perhaps, but still a perception, which is why subjectivity and qualia appears to have a perceptual characteristics, eg. I can focus on/attend to my subjective experience or qualitative experience and it becomes sharper, or I can ignore them and it fades more into the background, just like any other sense. This places front and center the fact that it, like all perceptions, are fundamentally incomplete, and necessarily inaccurate because the brain "fills in" missing information, eg. your field of view might seem complete, but you have literal physical blind spots that your brain fills in. Perceptions are accurate enough to be useful, but not fully reliable. And so we should conclude the same of our apparent perception of subjective, qualitative experience.
kkoncevicius 2y ago
I have an alternative, more generous explanation of your 2nd point - the people you talk about haven't done much reflection about consciousness yet and are so immersed in it that they cannot separate their own conscious experience as an entity to talk about. Like fish and water. Just like you said - it was also your position when you were younger. The people you label as having a different interior experience might be in the same position as your younger self.
o_nate 2y ago
I also incline to the view that experience is fundamental, but I'm not really sure that you mean by the term "information system". Who is deciding what counts as information? In everyday usage we usually speak of something containing information if it helps a person decide how to act. Perhaps agency is one of these "certain" properties that these special information systems need to possess. There does seem to be a lot of overlap between things that we grant the assumption of consciousness to and things that we grant some form of agency to.

tanepiper 2y ago

You word my position here too. 20's - a rabid Dawkins reading Athiest. 40's - I think Dawkins is an idiot and my favourite book is "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson"

tasty_freeze 2y ago
You don't come off as being a nuanced thinker if those are your two positions on Dawkins. I can understand disagreeing with him, but calling him an idiot impugns you more than him.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Assuming your model of him is correct. How many videos of him "destroying" theists have you watched on TikTok? I've seen 100+, and agree that he's an idiot, amazingly so. Watch carefully the words he uses as he "proves" his "facts".
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Have you considered that TikTok may not be a full representation of the human being? It is one thing to say someone spews bullshit on tiktok, and another to claim them an idiot. Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy?
    - mistermann 2y ago
      A full representation is not necessary. If a Human has errors in any single sentence, they have errors in their corresponding model. These details are the essence of the very point of contention. > Do you use a purity testing approach to determining idiocy? If one is claiming logical and epistemic superiority, as he literally and explicitly does, and arrogantly so (followed by roars of applause from the audience), I will judge him by those standards. I will also mock him, because he is sooooo dumb, while he chastises others for the same thing (which he is typically not wrong about, to be fair). Live by the sword, die by the sword.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Would you agree that this may make the error of judging them by their worst output, and not their best, or even average?
        mistermann 2y ago
        Oh yes, if I could bet money on it, I'd say it's even likely! However, I think this touches on an under realized phenomenon: the difference between what people say when they are "speaking their mind" in literature/studies (slow, deliberate, careful error checking, often including other people), versus the more real unfiltered version you get that comes out during real time speech (which emerges from cognition). In the atheism community in particular, there are some very strange beliefs about human beliefs. For example, a recurring claim I hear from atheists is that what object level atheists believe, in fact, is the formal definition of atheism: merely/only a lack of belief in God(s), but no negative belief. The silliness of this should be obvious, but I've had no luck getting any of them to realize (or even contemplate) this, not even one person. The irony is mind boggling. (The same phenomenon exists in science as well interestingly, which is part of why I claim it is a fact that it is an underpowered methodology/ideology for navigating reality, a false prophet if you will.) I propose that if he (and all other people) didn't actually hold these flawed beliefs in the first place, they wouldn't come out during real time speech... or if they did ~accidentally, they should be realized and corrected (which scientists in public venues tend to do, begrudgingly). All people suffer from this problem, and I think our culture buries it, for reasons I have no theory about (some sort of psychological game theory maybe?). Another way of putting it: if you only consume content from someone that is written offline, you are getting a misrepresentation of that person. I think this is a huge deal, yet another important part of reality that our culture behaves as if it is not there. We are like teenagers at best on an absolute scale imho.
- tanepiper 2y ago
  Well my position comes from some of the positions Dawkins has publicly stated, when he really didn't need to speak up in those circles. Maybe you find 'idiot' a strong word? The problem with someone like Dawkins is he is 'clever' - someone who doesn't understand that in his position it's better to not wield it like a weapon. This is why I prefer someone like Sean Carroll, who absolutely entertains some bonkers ideas, but never from a position of superiority or dismissal - but rather challenges it rationally.

carrozo 2y ago

What are your thoughts on what Donald Hoffman has been pursuing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

brotchie 2y ago
Compelling. I really buy his argument about our interior experience being a multimodal user interface (MUI) over stimulus from some information system. We describe the universe in terms of a 4D space-time with forces and particles, but this is really the MUI we've constructed (or evolution has constructed) that maximizes our predictive power when "actuating" our MUI (e.g interacting with that external system). I haven't thought about this before, and kinda rejected it on first reading of Hoffman's work, but think I grok it now. Because our internal experience is a MUI, and that MUI (4D space time, particles) can't be considered a "true reality", it's just an interface, then other conscious entities are more "real" than our MUI. That is, the fundamental true reality that really matters is other conscious agents (e.g. Conscious Realism). A slightly more wacky theory I like to think about is how this intersects with the simulation argument. If our reality isn't ring 0 (e.g. there's an outer reality that is actually time-stepping our universe), then the conscious interior experience we have in our reality may be due to the properties of reality in the outer universe "leaking through" into our simulation. This actually aligns well with the Hoffman's MUI argument. We live in some information processing system. Through evolution we've constructed a MUI that we see as 4D space time. But this doesn't at all reflect the true reality of our universe being a process simulated in the ring 0 reality. Conscious Realism then arises because ring 0 reality has properties that imbue pattern of information processing with interior experience.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

Assertion 1 is quite weak. The stronger version is that consciousness is the mechanism by which the universe processes information, and choice (as we experience it) is the mechanism by which the universe updates its state. Under this assertion, the laws of physics are nothing more than an application of the central limit theorem on the distribution of conscious choices made by all the little bits of the universe involved in the system. This view also implies that space and reality are "virtual" or "imaginary" much like George Berkeley suggested 300 years ago.

brotchie 2y ago
I'm starting to buy this argument after rejecting it before (primarily thought ignorance of the meaning of "consciousness is the mechanism by which the universe processes information"). Also intersects with Hoffman's argument re: Conscious Realism. The only real thing is conscious experience, and "reality" as used in common parlance is just a multimodal user interface constructed to maximize evolutionary fitness.

naasking 2y ago

> The interior experience of somebody who vehemently denies the hard problem must be so much different from my interior experience to the extend that the divide can't be bridged. Internal experiences are probably a bit different, but it's a mistake to think this is the only reason to deny the hard problem. We all experience perceptual illusions of various types, auditory, visual, etc. In other words, perceptions are useful but deeply flawed. Why do you think your perceptions of subjective, qualitative experience doesn't have these same issues? I see no factual reason to treat them differently, therefore I simply don't naively trust what my perception of conscious experience suggests might be true, eg. that subjective experience is cohesive, without gaps, ineliminable, ineffable, etc. Once you accept this fact, the hard problem starts looking a lot like a god of the gaps.

kkoncevicius 2y ago
To me it seems your reply is conflating consciousness with perception. The perception is the consciousness. Auditory illusion, for example, is just signals to the senses and your senses miss-representing the inputs. The consciousness is the part which is aware of these sensations. If they are accurate or not - is not the point. The point is that you are aware of them.
- naasking 2y ago
  > The consciousness is the part which is aware of these sensations Why are you so sure this awareness is not itself a perception generated internally? A higher order perception parameterized/modulated by other perceptions perhaps, but still a perception, which is why subjectivity and qualia appears to have a perceptual characteristics, eg. I can focus on/attend to my subjective experience or qualitative experience and it becomes sharper, or I can ignore them and it fades more into the background, just like any other sense. This places front and center the fact that it, like all perceptions, are fundamentally incomplete, and necessarily inaccurate because the brain "fills in" missing information, eg. your field of view might seem complete, but you have literal physical blind spots that your brain fills in. Perceptions are accurate enough to be useful, but not fully reliable. And so we should conclude the same of our apparent perception of subjective, qualitative experience.

kkoncevicius 2y ago

I have an alternative, more generous explanation of your 2nd point - the people you talk about haven't done much reflection about consciousness yet and are so immersed in it that they cannot separate their own conscious experience as an entity to talk about. Like fish and water. Just like you said - it was also your position when you were younger. The people you label as having a different interior experience might be in the same position as your younger self.

o_nate 2y ago

I also incline to the view that experience is fundamental, but I'm not really sure that you mean by the term "information system". Who is deciding what counts as information? In everyday usage we usually speak of something containing information if it helps a person decide how to act. Perhaps agency is one of these "certain" properties that these special information systems need to possess. There does seem to be a lot of overlap between things that we grant the assumption of consciousness to and things that we grant some form of agency to.