8 ms·

The problem with this line of thought is that consciousness can be damaged when it's physical container is damaged. A piece of falling masonry can be enough to

The problem with this line of thought is that consciousness can be damaged when it's physical container is damaged. A piece of falling masonry can be enough to shear off large parts or all of it. If consciousness was fundamentally distinct, this wouldn't be the case, would it?

teodosin 5mo ago
Is it consciousness that gets damaged, or just its contents? If you destroy an object, can you say that you've destroyed the space it occupied?
hnfong 5mo ago
There is a "The Matrix" (the movie) argument where we posit these: 1. Whatever you believe is true is true (this is how the consciousness builds worlds before there is any physical existence) 2. Our consciousness built the physical world and runs it like a simulation. 3. The reason our minds and consciousness are highly correlated to the physical situation is to make the simulation feel real. It's a specifically designed feature that to a large extent synchronizes the "host" and the simulated objects so that despite being outside of the simulation, the "host" feels like they are inside the simulation. 4. The corollary to 3 (and 1) is that if you are damaged or die in the simulation, that effect is mirrored outside the simulation too (to some extent). ---- (Never thought my adventures in metaphysics would be useful in a HN discussion thread!)
yubblegum 5mo ago
There is no problem here. [I may have shared this thought experiment before here using a different handle.] Let us assume there exists in our planet an undiscovered island that has developed independent of other human societies. This is not an island of primitives. The inhabitants pride themselves on their scientific and empirical approach to knowledge acquisition, however they are not quite on par with the rest of the planet in terms of scientific knowledge and technology. Specifically for our purposes, they have not yet discovered Electro-Magnetism. Now assume somehow (via a shipwreck, or whatever) these islanders come into possession of advanced transmitter/receiver communication devices, and we'll assume they are in working condition and have some sort of power source (magical internal or solar or whatever - they can be turned on). As the scientists on this island fiddle with these boxes, they notice that certain configuration of the device interface will cause it to 'emit voices, songs, and music'. Various knobs seem to change the voice, etc. Further experimentation and they discover that speaking to the device under certain configuration seems to establish a sort of 'communication' with the box. After these blackbox approaches, they start taking apart these mechanisms (while they are turned on). Now let's just pretend the internal radio communication components are perfectly modular (in terms of functionality) and can be removed and put back as required. They systematically begin removing various components and noting which uncanny features of these mystrious devices cease to function. One board removed and they no longer get certain band. Another board removed and the box doesn't talk back (think CB). They meticulously map out all these component to function mappings. The results are indisputable: These boxes are some sort of 'thinking machines'. The 'brains' of the machanisms is isolated to the radio elements of the devices. The 'proof' of this is that the boxes cease to speak or respond to communication when these elements are removed. > consciousness can be damaged when it's physical container is damaged Just like those radios.
- hnfong 5mo ago
  Interesting. I don't think the GP's objection is fatal either (for reasons mentioned in another reply), but let me try to poke holes in your argument. If I understand your analogy correctly, you're saying the brain here acts as an intermediary between the real consciousness and the physical world, and not really the underlying thing that generates consciousness. But this seems to contradict actual experience -- if somebody's head is hit very hard, they kind of get knocked dizzy for a moment. Their consciousness halts, until their brain recovers. If your analogy truly holds, then subjectively it should feel more like disconnecting from World of Warcraft. "The real consciousness" fiddles their fingers idly while waiting for reconnection, and once they reconnect they'd have a recollection (on the non-physical, consciousness side) of what happened during the physical blackout.
  - yubblegum 5mo ago
    I don't think the insistence on the requirement of 'hard disconnect' is reasonable. Per the brain as transceiver analogy, you are jiggling a part and may get 'static' while you are doing it. Stop the jiggling and static stops. Jiggle too hard and the part disconnects from its socket (knock them out /g) and you'll have the desired disconnect from the "World of Warcraft". p.s. Realized I didn't address your "subjectively". This is true, since the radio analogy was to address the analog of neuroscientists examining people with damaged brains. You want to know what the 'radio' feels :) So this is in fact an interesting aspect you bring in. The answer to this is: this seems to conflate 'ego' and 'self'. This is a different problem: Is the self the same as the ego? My own view on this is that is the ego is not the true self.
    - hnfong 5mo ago
      I must admit I've never been hit so hard that I am 100% knocked out, so I can't really speak as to the subjective experience of being knocked out (from the non-physical consciousness perspective, not the brain)... but surely it isn't like disconnecting from World of Warcraft? That said, if the injury is serious enough I suppose it might trigger some Near Death Experience where people have reported seeing things purportedly on the other side. So I guess that answers my original concern. (I think you might have confused my question though, or perhaps I've confused you. No worries, my questions are answered anyway.)

teodosin 5mo ago

Is it consciousness that gets damaged, or just its contents? If you destroy an object, can you say that you've destroyed the space it occupied?

hnfong 5mo ago

There is a "The Matrix" (the movie) argument where we posit these: 1. Whatever you believe is true is true (this is how the consciousness builds worlds before there is any physical existence) 2. Our consciousness built the physical world and runs it like a simulation. 3. The reason our minds and consciousness are highly correlated to the physical situation is to make the simulation feel real. It's a specifically designed feature that to a large extent synchronizes the "host" and the simulated objects so that despite being outside of the simulation, the "host" feels like they are inside the simulation. 4. The corollary to 3 (and 1) is that if you are damaged or die in the simulation, that effect is mirrored outside the simulation too (to some extent). ---- (Never thought my adventures in metaphysics would be useful in a HN discussion thread!)

yubblegum 5mo ago

There is no problem here. [I may have shared this thought experiment before here using a different handle.] Let us assume there exists in our planet an undiscovered island that has developed independent of other human societies. This is not an island of primitives. The inhabitants pride themselves on their scientific and empirical approach to knowledge acquisition, however they are not quite on par with the rest of the planet in terms of scientific knowledge and technology. Specifically for our purposes, they have not yet discovered Electro-Magnetism. Now assume somehow (via a shipwreck, or whatever) these islanders come into possession of advanced transmitter/receiver communication devices, and we'll assume they are in working condition and have some sort of power source (magical internal or solar or whatever - they can be turned on). As the scientists on this island fiddle with these boxes, they notice that certain configuration of the device interface will cause it to 'emit voices, songs, and music'. Various knobs seem to change the voice, etc. Further experimentation and they discover that speaking to the device under certain configuration seems to establish a sort of 'communication' with the box. After these blackbox approaches, they start taking apart these mechanisms (while they are turned on). Now let's just pretend the internal radio communication components are perfectly modular (in terms of functionality) and can be removed and put back as required. They systematically begin removing various components and noting which uncanny features of these mystrious devices cease to function. One board removed and they no longer get certain band. Another board removed and the box doesn't talk back (think CB). They meticulously map out all these component to function mappings. The results are indisputable: These boxes are some sort of 'thinking machines'. The 'brains' of the machanisms is isolated to the radio elements of the devices. The 'proof' of this is that the boxes cease to speak or respond to communication when these elements are removed. > consciousness can be damaged when it's physical container is damaged Just like those radios.

hnfong 5mo ago
Interesting. I don't think the GP's objection is fatal either (for reasons mentioned in another reply), but let me try to poke holes in your argument. If I understand your analogy correctly, you're saying the brain here acts as an intermediary between the real consciousness and the physical world, and not really the underlying thing that generates consciousness. But this seems to contradict actual experience -- if somebody's head is hit very hard, they kind of get knocked dizzy for a moment. Their consciousness halts, until their brain recovers. If your analogy truly holds, then subjectively it should feel more like disconnecting from World of Warcraft. "The real consciousness" fiddles their fingers idly while waiting for reconnection, and once they reconnect they'd have a recollection (on the non-physical, consciousness side) of what happened during the physical blackout.
- yubblegum 5mo ago
  I don't think the insistence on the requirement of 'hard disconnect' is reasonable. Per the brain as transceiver analogy, you are jiggling a part and may get 'static' while you are doing it. Stop the jiggling and static stops. Jiggle too hard and the part disconnects from its socket (knock them out /g) and you'll have the desired disconnect from the "World of Warcraft". p.s. Realized I didn't address your "subjectively". This is true, since the radio analogy was to address the analog of neuroscientists examining people with damaged brains. You want to know what the 'radio' feels :) So this is in fact an interesting aspect you bring in. The answer to this is: this seems to conflate 'ego' and 'self'. This is a different problem: Is the self the same as the ego? My own view on this is that is the ego is not the true self.
  - hnfong 5mo ago
    I must admit I've never been hit so hard that I am 100% knocked out, so I can't really speak as to the subjective experience of being knocked out (from the non-physical consciousness perspective, not the brain)... but surely it isn't like disconnecting from World of Warcraft? That said, if the injury is serious enough I suppose it might trigger some Near Death Experience where people have reported seeing things purportedly on the other side. So I guess that answers my original concern. (I think you might have confused my question though, or perhaps I've confused you. No worries, my questions are answered anyway.)