3 ms·

> Namely, almost everyone except for the philosophical extremist agrees that we are conscious and that a stone isn't. I really don't get why it's so hard for p

by mtrimpe 12y ago

> Namely, almost everyone except for the philosophical extremist agrees that we are conscious and that a stone isn't. I really don't get why it's so hard for people to imagine consciousness as a property of the universe rather than people. Everyone seems to intuitively agree that consciousness is a continuum with monkeys having quite a bit, cats having some; plants probably a bit too and stones virtually none. Given that, it makes much more sense to me that consciousness is an inherent property of the universe, perhaps even the mere passing of time, and that what we traditionally call 'consciousness' is just the degree to which some subset of consciousness is similar to our own.

jerf 12y ago
"I really don't get why it's so hard for people to imagine consciousness..." You name the crazy idea, it's been proposed and taken seriously by someone. I cut off your quote there quite deliberately. However, as Scott observes, most of them (and I'd daresay including yours) are so vague that it's difficult to even imagine what would falsify them. What does "consciousness is an inherent property of the universe" really mean? Can I bottle some of this inherent consciousness? Can I pour it out of one person and put it in another? Could a universe have exactly equivalent physical laws but lack this "inherent consciousness"? (If not, where in our physical laws does this "inherent consciousness" reside?) Can I talk to disembodied consciousness somehow? Can I build a device (with any theoretical level of complexity you like) that can concretely measure the amount of consciousness embedded in some system? Can you answer these questions in some way that can actually be manifested in some device or practice which can be demonstrated to produce real information of some sort, and not just more handwaving that plays shell games with the fact that it never ever quite gets down to the level of a theory that could even be slightly proved or falsified? That's the problem. In practice, all vague murmurings about consciousness that have absolutely no ability whatsoever to be used for anything are, ultimately, equivalent. "Pretty words strung in a row with no reference to reality" is one of the most venerable of philosophical traps.
- mtrimpe 12y ago
  I'm saying that what we call consciousness is merely a qualitative, subjective, signifier (correct word?) which describes the degree to which we consider the dynamic behaviour of parts of our universe to be similar to that of our own. Essentially consciousness is nothing more than the mere passage of time; change itself. And if the universe is not deterministic that the required 'magic spark' is unlikely to be reserved to just (our) brains and is more likely a universal property of the universe.

by mtrimpe 12y ago

jerf 12y ago

"I really don't get why it's so hard for people to imagine consciousness..." You name the crazy idea, it's been proposed and taken seriously by someone. I cut off your quote there quite deliberately. However, as Scott observes, most of them (and I'd daresay including yours) are so vague that it's difficult to even imagine what would falsify them. What does "consciousness is an inherent property of the universe" really mean? Can I bottle some of this inherent consciousness? Can I pour it out of one person and put it in another? Could a universe have exactly equivalent physical laws but lack this "inherent consciousness"? (If not, where in our physical laws does this "inherent consciousness" reside?) Can I talk to disembodied consciousness somehow? Can I build a device (with any theoretical level of complexity you like) that can concretely measure the amount of consciousness embedded in some system? Can you answer these questions in some way that can actually be manifested in some device or practice which can be demonstrated to produce real information of some sort, and not just more handwaving that plays shell games with the fact that it never ever quite gets down to the level of a theory that could even be slightly proved or falsified? That's the problem. In practice, all vague murmurings about consciousness that have absolutely no ability whatsoever to be used for anything are, ultimately, equivalent. "Pretty words strung in a row with no reference to reality" is one of the most venerable of philosophical traps.

mtrimpe 12y ago
I'm saying that what we call consciousness is merely a qualitative, subjective, signifier (correct word?) which describes the degree to which we consider the dynamic behaviour of parts of our universe to be similar to that of our own. Essentially consciousness is nothing more than the mere passage of time; change itself. And if the universe is not deterministic that the required 'magic spark' is unlikely to be reserved to just (our) brains and is more likely a universal property of the universe.