4 ms·

I disagree, it is only possible at the moment to define _intelligence_ as "that which emerges from neural activity". There is not evidence whatsoever that consc

I disagree, it is only possible at the moment to define _intelligence_ as "that which emerges from neural activity". There is not evidence whatsoever that consciousness emerges from neural activity. This is just a type of religious dogma in disguise. Think about it. Thanks for the link.

seiji 13y ago
There is not evidence whatsoever that consciousness emerges from neural activity. None? Ever? Consciousness could just be a free floating quantum mechanical genie attached to my back? Hogcock. We are only brains. If your brain gets squished, you don't really care because you'll cease to exist in this light cone.
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  That's what your player character in an action video game "thinks". If I get killed, I won't care anymore, because there would be nothing left of me. Guess what, his consciousness is you and you will close the game and walk away. In a consciousness dimension your character can't even imagine. This is absolutely unrooted parable, except that consciousness remains a mystery. What does it hide? We don't know.
  - seiji 13y ago
    Video game characters aren't consciously autonomous though. There's always the reductive argument of "Well, we could be running in a computer simulation and when you die here you're perfectly recreated in another simulated universe." But, we're not.
    - lmm 13y ago
      >Video game characters aren't consciously autonomous though. What distinction are you claiming exists between your own subjective experience and that of a video game character? (follow-up question: why do you believe this?)
- EGreg 13y ago
  How do you know that there are no other components besides the brain that cause there to be subjective experience? One might very well suspect that there is something more, considering that no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience. Your soul could be observing your body and being affected by it. While your memories and feelings are in the body, your subjective experience of them may not be.
  - seiji 13y ago
    no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience. This isn't a one time affair. Every human carries DNA explaining exactly how to create more intelligent conscious creatures. It doesn't take "special conditions." It happens in squalor, mud huts, ice, desert, famine, over excess—everywhere. We are self-replacing nanomachines looking like individual discrete entities on a macro scale. Your soul could be observing your body and being affected by it. Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less.
    - stianan 13y ago
      Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot reasonably claim to know this. Of course, your parent comment cannot know that "no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience" either, as long as he only has access to his own subjective experience.
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      > You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less. Clearly I am only a portion of my brain since if you remove some of it I am still me. But then, if you start killing the neurons in my brain one by one, at what point do I stop being me?
  - mcguire 13y ago
    How does your soul observe and affect your body? (I'm assuming you mean a two-way path there; "observing your body and being affected by it" would be one-way, and would be problematic. "A difference that makes no difference", and all.) Can this connection be distorted or interrupted? What are the effects of doing so? If you accept that a drug-induced solipsistic, out-of-body effect[1] is an alteration of subjective experience, are you then going to argue that "While your memories, feelings, and subjective experience are in the body, your X may not be." What would X be? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197315
- rickhanlonii 13y ago
  >We are only brains. If your brain gets squished, you don't really care because you'll cease to exist in this light cone. I agree with you. However, we both have to give serious consideration to the objection that our brains are a necessary but not sufficient condition of consciousness. We do not know, as of yet, that our brains are not merely some sort of wireless router for some higher existential consciousness. I don't think it is, but intellectual integrity demands that it's seriously considered.
  - eloff 13y ago
    A wireless router that evolved through a process of natural selection from simple, not conscious single-celled (and simpler) life-forms? That seems a bit far-fetched don't you think?
    - rickhanlonii 13y ago
      I agree; that does seem far-fetched. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a legitimate objection that demands respectable consideration.

seiji 13y ago

There is not evidence whatsoever that consciousness emerges from neural activity. None? Ever? Consciousness could just be a free floating quantum mechanical genie attached to my back? Hogcock. We are only brains. If your brain gets squished, you don't really care because you'll cease to exist in this light cone.

guard-of-terra 13y ago
That's what your player character in an action video game "thinks". If I get killed, I won't care anymore, because there would be nothing left of me. Guess what, his consciousness is you and you will close the game and walk away. In a consciousness dimension your character can't even imagine. This is absolutely unrooted parable, except that consciousness remains a mystery. What does it hide? We don't know.
- seiji 13y ago
  Video game characters aren't consciously autonomous though. There's always the reductive argument of "Well, we could be running in a computer simulation and when you die here you're perfectly recreated in another simulated universe." But, we're not.
  - lmm 13y ago
    >Video game characters aren't consciously autonomous though. What distinction are you claiming exists between your own subjective experience and that of a video game character? (follow-up question: why do you believe this?)
EGreg 13y ago
How do you know that there are no other components besides the brain that cause there to be subjective experience? One might very well suspect that there is something more, considering that no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience. Your soul could be observing your body and being affected by it. While your memories and feelings are in the body, your subjective experience of them may not be.
- seiji 13y ago
  no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience. This isn't a one time affair. Every human carries DNA explaining exactly how to create more intelligent conscious creatures. It doesn't take "special conditions." It happens in squalor, mud huts, ice, desert, famine, over excess—everywhere. We are self-replacing nanomachines looking like individual discrete entities on a macro scale. Your soul could be observing your body and being affected by it. Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less.
  - stianan 13y ago
    Nope. Not possible. You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less. You cannot reasonably claim to know this. Of course, your parent comment cannot know that "no arrangement of physical parts has come close to qualitatively being the same as a subjective experience" either, as long as he only has access to his own subjective experience.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    > You are entirely your brain. Nothing more, nothing less. Clearly I am only a portion of my brain since if you remove some of it I am still me. But then, if you start killing the neurons in my brain one by one, at what point do I stop being me?
- mcguire 13y ago
  How does your soul observe and affect your body? (I'm assuming you mean a two-way path there; "observing your body and being affected by it" would be one-way, and would be problematic. "A difference that makes no difference", and all.) Can this connection be distorted or interrupted? What are the effects of doing so? If you accept that a drug-induced solipsistic, out-of-body effect[1] is an alteration of subjective experience, are you then going to argue that "While your memories, feelings, and subjective experience are in the body, your X may not be." What would X be? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6197315
rickhanlonii 13y ago
>We are only brains. If your brain gets squished, you don't really care because you'll cease to exist in this light cone. I agree with you. However, we both have to give serious consideration to the objection that our brains are a necessary but not sufficient condition of consciousness. We do not know, as of yet, that our brains are not merely some sort of wireless router for some higher existential consciousness. I don't think it is, but intellectual integrity demands that it's seriously considered.
- eloff 13y ago
  A wireless router that evolved through a process of natural selection from simple, not conscious single-celled (and simpler) life-forms? That seems a bit far-fetched don't you think?
  - rickhanlonii 13y ago
    I agree; that does seem far-fetched. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a legitimate objection that demands respectable consideration.