5 ms·

I’m baffled: how does the fact that each cell has an internal clock that continues to tick even when you take away all external signals not impact what consciou

I’m baffled: how does the fact that each cell has an internal clock that continues to tick even when you take away all external signals not impact what consciousness is logically? If the time order driving behavior is driven by an internal timekeeper, that is logically relevant to the behavior you’re interrogating. If, on the other hand, all component systems depended on an external clock, that logically points to a completely different dynamic process. As for the philosophy of it all… it’s true I make no comment on it. I’d rather look at the physical substrate and see what it does, and compare it to behavior, than try to fit a philosophy that originated before we had such high resolution knowledge of the system. They are blind to these facts, just because they were written up too early. I utterly reject this doesn’t show you anything logically about consciousness. If I can show you that the molecular dynamics of each cell organize to anticipate the dawn, and do so even in constant darkness (and all this is well established.. there was a Nobel for the field in 2017) how is that not logically distinct from a system that is outside of regular time, needs to check a clock to locate itself in time, and then do whatever dynamics it does to solve the problem at hand? As for calling this a coping mechanism… that’s a bit rich coming from someone who seems to have very little idea of the molecular and cellular biology but seems to want to hold to the belief that we’ve solved consciousness with LLMs. We can both fling that accusation about. Seems more productive to compare the physical dynamics and see what’s different and what’s similar, no?

altcognito 1mo ago
You said (originally): > I’d urge you to not keep insisting consciousness is a total mystery. But don't want to get into the philosophy of it. I'd urge you to consider the definition of conciousness (as specified by the original question) wasn't just about biology. And it is 100% very difficult to define. > We do have entry and exit conditions. We can disrupt it and study the dynamics of the disruption. We've known life and death for quite some time. Even from the biological perspective, there's nothing new there in the largest sense. All we've done is refine it. Animals are aware of it. > but seems to want to hold to the belief that we’ve solved consciousness with LLMs Quite the contrary, much like everything else, the more we learn, the more questions we have. > Seems more productive to compare the physical dynamics and see what’s different and what’s similar, no? ok but.... > how is that not logically distinct from a system that is outside of regular time, needs to check a clock to locate itself in time, and then do whatever dynamics it does to solve the problem at hand? We only check clocks because we have an internal molecular dynamic that directs us to do so, and it is tied to a similar system as everything else.
- randomImmigrant 1mo ago
  > But don't want to get into the philosophy of it. I'd urge you to consider the definition of conciousness (as specified by the original question) wasn't just about biology. And it is 100% very difficult to define. No. I don't engage in the philosophy of it because most of the consciousness philosophy that gets bandied about and is familiar to folks is from 20-30 years ago, and rest on knowledge that is significantly less granular about details. You don't, for instance, demand physicists need to engage in the philosophy of gravity do you? You demand theory. Neuroscience does the same of consciousness, and there are definite theories with support coming at the problem from different ends. Insisting it's a mystery without engaging with the facts is not what I'm interested in. > We've known life and death for quite some time. Even from the biological perspective, there's nothing new there in the largest sense. All we've done is refine it. Animals are aware of it. Not quite sure what this means, but as with consciousness, I'd say life also isn't a complete mystery, we have made great strides understanding it as it is and it's evolution in the past few decades, and while the philosophy of life, mired in assumptions from past decades, remains hopelessly stalled, the science of life has simply moved on. > We only check clocks because we have an internal molecular dynamic that directs us to do so, and it is tied to a similar system as everything else. Is this tongue in cheek? Nothing about our internal molecular clock tells us to check clocks. For most of life, there were no manufactured clocks, remember? They are a relatively recent invention. Jeez.

altcognito 1mo ago

You said (originally): > I’d urge you to not keep insisting consciousness is a total mystery. But don't want to get into the philosophy of it. I'd urge you to consider the definition of conciousness (as specified by the original question) wasn't just about biology. And it is 100% very difficult to define. > We do have entry and exit conditions. We can disrupt it and study the dynamics of the disruption. We've known life and death for quite some time. Even from the biological perspective, there's nothing new there in the largest sense. All we've done is refine it. Animals are aware of it. > but seems to want to hold to the belief that we’ve solved consciousness with LLMs Quite the contrary, much like everything else, the more we learn, the more questions we have. > Seems more productive to compare the physical dynamics and see what’s different and what’s similar, no? ok but.... > how is that not logically distinct from a system that is outside of regular time, needs to check a clock to locate itself in time, and then do whatever dynamics it does to solve the problem at hand? We only check clocks because we have an internal molecular dynamic that directs us to do so, and it is tied to a similar system as everything else.

randomImmigrant 1mo ago
> But don't want to get into the philosophy of it. I'd urge you to consider the definition of conciousness (as specified by the original question) wasn't just about biology. And it is 100% very difficult to define. No. I don't engage in the philosophy of it because most of the consciousness philosophy that gets bandied about and is familiar to folks is from 20-30 years ago, and rest on knowledge that is significantly less granular about details. You don't, for instance, demand physicists need to engage in the philosophy of gravity do you? You demand theory. Neuroscience does the same of consciousness, and there are definite theories with support coming at the problem from different ends. Insisting it's a mystery without engaging with the facts is not what I'm interested in. > We've known life and death for quite some time. Even from the biological perspective, there's nothing new there in the largest sense. All we've done is refine it. Animals are aware of it. Not quite sure what this means, but as with consciousness, I'd say life also isn't a complete mystery, we have made great strides understanding it as it is and it's evolution in the past few decades, and while the philosophy of life, mired in assumptions from past decades, remains hopelessly stalled, the science of life has simply moved on. > We only check clocks because we have an internal molecular dynamic that directs us to do so, and it is tied to a similar system as everything else. Is this tongue in cheek? Nothing about our internal molecular clock tells us to check clocks. For most of life, there were no manufactured clocks, remember? They are a relatively recent invention. Jeez.