3 ms·

> almost everyone except for the philosophical extremist agrees that we are conscious and that a stone isn't. It is possible for me to imagine a conscious bein

> almost everyone except for the philosophical extremist agrees that we are conscious and that a stone isn't. It is possible for me to imagine a conscious being that, mute and immotile, can't give any outward indications of consciousness. I am not an extremist. So "almost everyone" is not thinking rationally on the subject. I doubt very much that stones are conscious, it's not worth exploring that question in a practical sense. But to dismiss a theory, even an outlandish one, based only on my admittedly-flawed intution... that's highly unreasonable. The trouble is that this is no longer a philosophical question, that it can't be a scientific question until we have an objective definition, and worst of all... it's very much a political question now. How is that you say? It's a political question for many reasons. The abortion controversy touches on it, animal rights touch on it, etc. Everyone's groping for an answer that proves chickens are soulful and shouldn't be eaten, or that it's ok to scrape away their unborn child with a curette because they couldn't be bothered to figure out how to use a condom or take a pill. > Sure, we'd like to think that none of the entities he describes are in fact conscious. But if that's the bullet I have to bite in order to get a decent theory of consciousness, then I might be OK with that. What's decent about it? This theory is useless in a scientific sense. Can you construct an artificial consciousness if this theory is true? No. Can you test consciousness with it, if it is true? Again, no (though some will dispute this, naturally). Can it lead to other theories that are themselves useful? Well, that remains to be seen, but it's difficult to imagine why that might be so... this doesn't seem like a rough idea that merely needs refinement.

rictic 12y ago
Even knowing the chemical makeup of a stone as being a simple lattice of inert unchanging material? I don't think it's anyone's position that something could be mute and immotile yet conscious, but we know a lot more about rocks than that. As far as applications, one of the early uses of a practical theory of consciousness may be to determine the effectiveness of anesthesia on a moment by moment basis.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  > I don't think it's anyone's position that something could be mute and immotile yet conscious, Until someone tells me what consciousness is, that's impossible to say one way or the other. Do you know what it is? I can make some vague descriptions myself that I think are supportable (it's related to intelligence), but past that I'm willing to admit we don't even have a starting point to work with. It seems to me to be the modern not-quite-atheist-hipster soul. The term is used most often when someone wants to prove to me that it's a sin to eat meat (that chicken was a conscious being!). I see quite a few headlines that are mangled, claiming that a neurologist has proven the honeybee or an orca to be conscious, but when I read the articles themselves it always turns out that the MRI machine has similar readings to those of a human. None of this is meaningful. > As far as applications, one of the early uses of a practical theory of consciousness may be to determine the effectiveness of anesthesia on a moment by moment basis. If we're daydreaming, sure. But that's one of dozens. We're probably looking at the basis for AI too, if we get one. Whether or not that can be accomplished in software. Education will benefit... you'll be able to determine whether a student is learning, or how best to accomplish that. Intelligence testing, personality tests (don't elect him, he only scored an 8 on the non-sociopath test!), lie detection, etc. But I've yet to see a theory of consciousness (debunked or not) that could lead to any of this. Even if the author is wrong, and that theory is correct... even if it is only preliminary and needs to be polished, where will it give us any of this? It doesn't even point us in the direction of a more complete theory, and none of them do.
  - rictic 12y ago
    Wow what a typo on my part, sorry I meant to say "I don't think it's anyone's position that something couldn't be mute and immotile yet conscious."
vilhelm_s 12y ago
> Can you construct an artificial consciousness if this theory is true? Yes, very easily! The linked blogpost describes how. :)

rictic 12y ago

Even knowing the chemical makeup of a stone as being a simple lattice of inert unchanging material? I don't think it's anyone's position that something could be mute and immotile yet conscious, but we know a lot more about rocks than that. As far as applications, one of the early uses of a practical theory of consciousness may be to determine the effectiveness of anesthesia on a moment by moment basis.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
> I don't think it's anyone's position that something could be mute and immotile yet conscious, Until someone tells me what consciousness is, that's impossible to say one way or the other. Do you know what it is? I can make some vague descriptions myself that I think are supportable (it's related to intelligence), but past that I'm willing to admit we don't even have a starting point to work with. It seems to me to be the modern not-quite-atheist-hipster soul. The term is used most often when someone wants to prove to me that it's a sin to eat meat (that chicken was a conscious being!). I see quite a few headlines that are mangled, claiming that a neurologist has proven the honeybee or an orca to be conscious, but when I read the articles themselves it always turns out that the MRI machine has similar readings to those of a human. None of this is meaningful. > As far as applications, one of the early uses of a practical theory of consciousness may be to determine the effectiveness of anesthesia on a moment by moment basis. If we're daydreaming, sure. But that's one of dozens. We're probably looking at the basis for AI too, if we get one. Whether or not that can be accomplished in software. Education will benefit... you'll be able to determine whether a student is learning, or how best to accomplish that. Intelligence testing, personality tests (don't elect him, he only scored an 8 on the non-sociopath test!), lie detection, etc. But I've yet to see a theory of consciousness (debunked or not) that could lead to any of this. Even if the author is wrong, and that theory is correct... even if it is only preliminary and needs to be polished, where will it give us any of this? It doesn't even point us in the direction of a more complete theory, and none of them do.
- rictic 12y ago
  Wow what a typo on my part, sorry I meant to say "I don't think it's anyone's position that something couldn't be mute and immotile yet conscious."

vilhelm_s 12y ago

> Can you construct an artificial consciousness if this theory is true? Yes, very easily! The linked blogpost describes how. :)