4 ms·
There is little doubt that the cat is conscious, and the idea that consciousness is a gradient with more than one dimension is not really in dispute. In fact, y
by Udo 12y ago
There is little doubt that the cat is conscious, and the idea that consciousness is a gradient with more than one dimension is not really in dispute. In fact, you can build a very simple gradient model by observing nothing but humans: a human baby is scarcely conscious at all, a toddler is pretty much on par with the cat, and a grown human has a higher level still. The reason why we think this is true is based on at least two things: awareness and meta-awareness (which includes the ability to reason about one's own existence as well as the world in general).
The cat and the toddler are clearly conscious in the sense that they do have a recognizable life experience. They don't just react to the environment, they make models of it, and they have a limited ability to abstract observations. They experience life, and they have complex dreams and emotions. However, they still lack a deeper understanding of causalities, and they can grasp the subjective realities of other beings only on an instinctive level. Adult humans are less limited in this regard, but it's easy to imagine hypothetical beings who perform better still.
That's bad news for the validity of consciousness as a concept, since it seems to be interlinked with intelligence, which itself is a fuzzy idea at best.
So these observations amount to the position that "consciousness" isn't a fundamental property at all, it's the result of other processes and it can come in different flavors. Likewise, the concept of "intelligence" is similarly flawed. In both, we tend to make the mistake of looking at them as simple scalar values. They're not. They're a name we give for a collection of different capabilities. As such, I believe a mathematical model of consciousness is actually pretty unscientific, since consciousness is not an objective property. It's an artificial label we're obsessed with.
- apl 12y agoThat's not the notion of consciousness we're dealing with when talking about the "hard" problem of consciousness. You're describing its psycho-functional interpretation: the ability to see yourself as a "self". Qualia are a largely orthogonal issue. Specifically, it's imaginable that an entity we'd consider unintelligent has a rich and detailed subjective internal life.
- Udo 12y agoI agree it's a psycho-functional interpretation (I would call it duck typing), but my argument is that everything else looks like a pseudo-scientific attempt at philosophy to me. It's not clear that we need a theory of consciousness at all, how is something as ill-defined as consciousness even viable in a mathematical context?
- apl 12y ago> I would call it duck typing Ha, that's a fairly apt comparison. > It's not clear that we need a theory of consciousness at > all, how is something as ill-defined as consciousness even > viable in a mathematical context? That's not clear to me either, but there are some convincing arguments in favour of treating it at least logically if not quantitatively (like IIT does). I recommend the work of David Chalmers in this context because it's mathematically sound and written from the perspective of a dualist. Definitely worthwhile...
- dragonwriter 12y ago> Specifically, it's imaginable that an entity we'd consider unintelligent has a rich and detailed subjective internal life. Yes, just as its possible that an entity we'd consider intelligent doesn't, but since it's subjective, its not subject to empirical -- and, hence, scientific -- verification. Anything we are going to say objectively on issues related to consciousness isn't going to address that, because that's a question outside the scope of science.
- KC8ZKF 12y agoIt's ontologically subjective but epistemologically objective, in the sense that we can ask questions and observe behavior. Pain is a good example.
- rictic 12y agoThere's many more points on the gradient, some of which are of practical importance. A person in deep sleep is less conscious than someone in light sleep who is less conscious than someone blearily waking up who is less conscious than that person when they're wide awake. More practically speaking it is medically and ethically important for a person under anesthesia to have low consciousness.