4 ms·

[deleted]

ben_w 2y ago
Science and philosophy as they currently stand have yet to settle on just one single an universally agreed upon definition of "consciousness" — last I heard it was about 40 different definitions, some of which are so poor that tape recorders would pass. The philosophical definitions also sometimes preclude any human from being able to meet the standard, e.g. by requiring the ability to solve the halting problem. Without knowing which thing you mean, we can't confidently say which arrangements of matter are or are not conscious; but we can still be at least moderately confident (for most definitions) that it's something material because various material things can change our consciousness. LSD, for example.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  A slightly-less-than-perfect analogy: I can mess with the execution of software by mis-adjusting the power supply far enough. It still runs, but it starts having weird errors. Based on that, would we say that software is electrical? Is software electrical? It certainly runs on electrical hardware. And yet, it seems absurdly reductionist to say that software is electrical. It's missing all the ways in which software is not like hardware. Is consciousness similar? It runs on physical (chemical) hardware. But is it itself physical or chemical? Or is that too reductionist a view? (Note that there is no claim that software is "woo" or "spirit" or anything like that. It's not just hardware, though.)
- glenstein 2y ago
  >because various material things can change our consciousness. LSD, for example. I feel really encouraged here, because I think this example has surfaced recently (to my awareness at least) of a good example of material impacts on conscious states that seems to get through to everybody.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    It's a pretty old argument tbqh. Also, mind altering drugs are basically just more subtle forms of the Phineas Gage thing.
    - glenstein 2y ago
      Right, you can cite, say, lobotomies, concussions etc all day long but I think eyes glaze over and it hinges on the examples you choose. I think the one about drugs is helpful because it speaks to the special things the mind does, the kind of romanticized essentialism that's sometimes attributed to consciousness, in virtue of which it supposedly is beyond the reach of any physicalist accounting or explanation.

[deleted]

Science and philosophy as they currently stand have yet to settle on just one single an universally agreed upon definition of "consciousness" — last I heard it was about 40 different definitions, some of which are so poor that tape recorders would pass. The philosophical definitions also sometimes preclude any human from being able to meet the standard, e.g. by requiring the ability to solve the halting problem. Without knowing which thing you mean, we can't confidently say which arrangements of matter are or are not conscious; but we can still be at least moderately confident (for most definitions) that it's something material because various material things can change our consciousness. LSD, for example.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
A slightly-less-than-perfect analogy: I can mess with the execution of software by mis-adjusting the power supply far enough. It still runs, but it starts having weird errors. Based on that, would we say that software is electrical? Is software electrical? It certainly runs on electrical hardware. And yet, it seems absurdly reductionist to say that software is electrical. It's missing all the ways in which software is not like hardware. Is consciousness similar? It runs on physical (chemical) hardware. But is it itself physical or chemical? Or is that too reductionist a view? (Note that there is no claim that software is "woo" or "spirit" or anything like that. It's not just hardware, though.)
glenstein 2y ago
>because various material things can change our consciousness. LSD, for example. I feel really encouraged here, because I think this example has surfaced recently (to my awareness at least) of a good example of material impacts on conscious states that seems to get through to everybody.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  It's a pretty old argument tbqh. Also, mind altering drugs are basically just more subtle forms of the Phineas Gage thing.
  - glenstein 2y ago
    Right, you can cite, say, lobotomies, concussions etc all day long but I think eyes glaze over and it hinges on the examples you choose. I think the one about drugs is helpful because it speaks to the special things the mind does, the kind of romanticized essentialism that's sometimes attributed to consciousness, in virtue of which it supposedly is beyond the reach of any physicalist accounting or explanation.