3 ms·

What do you think is more likely, every other human and probably most animals experience consciousness in much the same way that you do, or you are unique and s

by wruza 2y ago

What do you think is more likely, every other human and probably most animals experience consciousness in much the same way that you do, or you are unique and special and your consciousness is much more lucid than everyone else? I’d separate “experiencing” from how it works here. It doesn’t have to be more lucid, all these people similar to you may not experience it and may only “work” properly, while you both work and experience. In this, you also may lose it anytime and the body you have wouldn’t even notice. As of how unique you are, well, you may have it and they may not. You can’t tell due to “wouldn’t notice” part. You (both body and it) can only insanely loop back, converge on it for a while right now, until routine gets you again. Imagine a book about a guy who reads that same book. That’s the theme here. The author decides to never go back to this fourth-wall break and that’s it. Or he just stops writing in the middle of a sentence. Or something else. Whatever he does, the guy in the book has zero choice, despite realizing all of it clearly. it really falls apart quickly - if we operated like we didn't know if other people were conscious to the same degree we were, then we would behave abhorrently Only if the “work” part tends to this and loops back enough. Which is unusual for humans. People barely ask themselves questions about consciousness, and many actively(!) avoid the talks. You may think that free bodyless geneless part of “you” is something that makes decisions, but does it?

DontchaKnowit 2y ago
I'm sorry, this entire comment does not make any sense to me. What do you mean by "work"? in your second paragraph you keep using "it" without Identifying what "it" is. Also you keep saying "loop back" I don't understand what you mean by this. This sounds a little like some LSD-style word salad.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  He's referring to consciousness, and the fact that we may all be more of passengers than drivers. The entity inside of you, experiencing everything like a highly interactive movie, is your consciousness - you. And we tend to think of this as what drives our actions, because it certainly feels it. I'm 'thinking up' these words, and then writing them down, so certainly this is me - the observing entity within this body? But that's somewhat begging a question of free will. Did I choose these words, because I literally chose them or is it simply a product of various physical processes within the entity that I'm 'attached' to and 'observing'? And if this latter possibility is the case, then the presence of "me", the consciousness, serves absolutely no purpose beyond being a 'passenger.' And an entity with or without such a thing would behave identically. This could, for instance, include compelling descriptions of consciousness. This is one of the main issues I have with consciousness. If you write a computer program to give you the value of a variable, add a couple of numbers, or other fundamental process then you certainly don't believe some entity suddenly poofs into existence, imagines itself doing such an action(s) of its own will, and then poofing our of existence. Yet, if one is to believe consciousness is suddenly emergent then this must become true at some point or 2, 3, or 2^100 actions, which I find no less absurd.
- wruza 2y ago
  A sibling commenter got my line of thought right. It sounds like LSD trip because it’s about a topic that is naturally trippy. By looping back I meant that in a passive passenger (experiencer, observer, you name it) & a physical body situation, the latter may coincidentally be driven into thinking about the former (as we were itt), but that doesn’t really mean the two are interacting. The passenger part doesn’t even have its own mind cause its only mind is in the body. By “work” I mean the physical body. Esoterics aside, our bodies are physical objects which “just work”. They don’t need a metaphysical observer to do human things. Bodies without a “passenger” are usually called p-zombies in philosophy.

by wruza 2y ago

DontchaKnowit 2y ago

I'm sorry, this entire comment does not make any sense to me. What do you mean by "work"? in your second paragraph you keep using "it" without Identifying what "it" is. Also you keep saying "loop back" I don't understand what you mean by this. This sounds a little like some LSD-style word salad.

somenameforme 2y ago
He's referring to consciousness, and the fact that we may all be more of passengers than drivers. The entity inside of you, experiencing everything like a highly interactive movie, is your consciousness - you. And we tend to think of this as what drives our actions, because it certainly feels it. I'm 'thinking up' these words, and then writing them down, so certainly this is me - the observing entity within this body? But that's somewhat begging a question of free will. Did I choose these words, because I literally chose them or is it simply a product of various physical processes within the entity that I'm 'attached' to and 'observing'? And if this latter possibility is the case, then the presence of "me", the consciousness, serves absolutely no purpose beyond being a 'passenger.' And an entity with or without such a thing would behave identically. This could, for instance, include compelling descriptions of consciousness. This is one of the main issues I have with consciousness. If you write a computer program to give you the value of a variable, add a couple of numbers, or other fundamental process then you certainly don't believe some entity suddenly poofs into existence, imagines itself doing such an action(s) of its own will, and then poofing our of existence. Yet, if one is to believe consciousness is suddenly emergent then this must become true at some point or 2, 3, or 2^100 actions, which I find no less absurd.
wruza 2y ago
A sibling commenter got my line of thought right. It sounds like LSD trip because it’s about a topic that is naturally trippy. By looping back I meant that in a passive passenger (experiencer, observer, you name it) & a physical body situation, the latter may coincidentally be driven into thinking about the former (as we were itt), but that doesn’t really mean the two are interacting. The passenger part doesn’t even have its own mind cause its only mind is in the body. By “work” I mean the physical body. Esoterics aside, our bodies are physical objects which “just work”. They don’t need a metaphysical observer to do human things. Bodies without a “passenger” are usually called p-zombies in philosophy.