4 ms·
I would submit that to properly define something, you have to understand it. Since consciousness is not understood, it has no definition. Talk about consciousne
by jkkramer 19y ago
I would submit that to properly define something, you have to understand it. Since consciousness is not understood, it has no definition. Talk about consciousness isn't hot air; it's an effort to understand.
Science tends to be inductive: we have to leap from particular experiences to abstract principles. With consciousness, we have the experiences but haven't made the leap yet to principles.
- Tichy 19y agoI doubt that "with consciousness, we have experiences". I think consciousness is only an illusion. OK, try to name at least something you consider an aspect of consciousness? I already don't have a clue again what we are even talking about. What is "consciousness" supposed to mean?
- jkkramer 19y agoConsciousness is not an experience of something. It's the experience itself. So it doesn't have qualities--it IS qualities. It's not red, it's what it's like to see red. It's the immediate (no intermediary) subjective happenings of your conscious mind. I can't point you to it because my pointing is a view presented to you in consciousness. It's not mystical or anything. In fact, it requires less faith than anything else -- it's all you've ever known directly. You could be living in the real world or in the Matrix, it doesn't matter. Either way, consciousness doesn't change, just the contents of consciousness.
- Tichy 19y ago"It's the immediate (no intermediary) subjective happenings of your conscious mind." Circular definition, doesn't work. So it is neurons firing, fine. I just don't know why we need entire research departments and conferences for that. Or do you mean it is creating a model of the perceived world? Computers can do that without a problem (quality of the model is a different matter). Does it puzzle people in the same way how computer chips can process information? Why not? (I am not talking about algorithms or electronics - those are interesting)
- coffeeaddicted 19y agoThe best text I've read so far on that topic is the one from chalmers: http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html http://www.imprint.co.uk/chalmers.html He made a strong argumentation for the difference between experiencing something and having a experiencing state. After that he also gets somewhat speculative, but at least reading the first 2 points is worth it.
- Tichy 19y agoThanks for the link, but in my opinion, he is just chasing a chimera. At least he mentions the easy problems, and they are menaingful in my opinion. I have no problem if people invest their time in trying to create artificial intelligence. Those are well posed problems, like "create a chat bot i can have a meaningful conversation with". The "experiencing state" in my opinion is rubbish, it's nothing. As was written in the other thread, "how can physics explain the sensation of eating a strawberry". I think that it is essentially just like this: if(isEatingStrawberry()){ taste = strawberryTaste} (with more associations etc., but there is nothing special about it that lies outside the realm of physics).
- euccastro 19y agoI think consciousness is only an illusion. How do you call the ability to have illusions, then?
- Tichy 19y agoInformation processing.