4 ms·

That's why I used the word collective. Computers are not conscious. But let's go a step further. What is being conscious? Sensory input, electrical signals work

by negamax 13y ago

That's why I used the word collective. Computers are not conscious. But let's go a step further. What is being conscious? Sensory input, electrical signals working on memories and imagination pushing the unknown. I don't think there's any magic in being conscious. Having said that, I do accept my knowledge and understanding of this subject is limited. But I am not going to fall to 'if it can't be explained it must be divine' trap.

yongjik 13y ago
I think you misunderstood. I'm not objecting to the idea that mind is ultimately made of matter. I'm objecting to labeling it as a "state of matter", which has an entirely different meaning. (It does NOT mean "here's a bunch of matter that interacts in an interesting way.") The paper's abstract even explicitly states: > We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: ... So it seems clear that the author argues "being conscious" is parallel to "being liquid", but this better have a really solid (no pun intended) justification.
- robmclarty 13y ago
  I agree with you. And I don't think "being conscious" is like "being liquid". Liquidity is a description of physical attributes. Consciousness is an existential state of being (whatever that means). I think it would be nice if we could explain everything we observe in the universe in terms of physical laws and mathematical formulae. But I don't think we're there yet. And why not a possible divine explanation? Last I checked, we haven't completely ruled it out. It's not a trap. At the very least, materialists should be able to counter divine arguments, not just ignore them.
  - negamax 13y ago
    Ruling out the divine because that thought thread stops the need for further exploration. And may be, thought is metaphysical and have physical and meta connotations which I/we can't even imagine. But I would like to stay ignorant, knowing that I don't know rather than accepting an unexplainable explanation.

by negamax 13y ago

yongjik 13y ago

I think you misunderstood. I'm not objecting to the idea that mind is ultimately made of matter. I'm objecting to labeling it as a "state of matter", which has an entirely different meaning. (It does NOT mean "here's a bunch of matter that interacts in an interesting way.") The paper's abstract even explicitly states: > We explore five basic principles that may distinguish conscious matter from other physical systems such as solids, liquids and gases: ... So it seems clear that the author argues "being conscious" is parallel to "being liquid", but this better have a really solid (no pun intended) justification.

robmclarty 13y ago
I agree with you. And I don't think "being conscious" is like "being liquid". Liquidity is a description of physical attributes. Consciousness is an existential state of being (whatever that means). I think it would be nice if we could explain everything we observe in the universe in terms of physical laws and mathematical formulae. But I don't think we're there yet. And why not a possible divine explanation? Last I checked, we haven't completely ruled it out. It's not a trap. At the very least, materialists should be able to counter divine arguments, not just ignore them.
- negamax 13y ago
  Ruling out the divine because that thought thread stops the need for further exploration. And may be, thought is metaphysical and have physical and meta connotations which I/we can't even imagine. But I would like to stay ignorant, knowing that I don't know rather than accepting an unexplainable explanation.