3 ms·
The fact that a single, first-person consciousness exists is entirely objective. To the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific way to go about verifying
by gloob 17y ago
The fact that a single, first-person consciousness exists is entirely objective. To the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific way to go about verifying the consciousness of others; despite this (and despite the traditional "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" bent of Popperian science), most people work from a default assumption that other people have an existence somewhat similar to their own.
- maxwell 17y ago> The fact that a single, first-person consciousness exists is entirely objective. I wouldn't describe my consciousness as 'single or 'first-person. It often runs multiple threads, and by no means exclusively thinks of itself in the first-person. Additionally, it really doesn't identify with this body much more than, say, this house or computer. My consciousness isn't 'human any more than it's "ranch-style" or 'x86. Our language has already adopted inorganic technologies as extensions of ourselves (e.g. I say "I'll come over" which expands to "I'll come over in my car").
- tome 17y agoYou might be interested in Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" which takes the opposite stance to you, i.e. that bat consciousness is inseparable from being a bat (and analogously, human). See e.g. http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm http://www.consciousentities.com/bats.htm
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoLet's not throw Popper under the bus just yet. In all fairness, if you don't have a definition, you can't have falsifiability. So Popper, imo, really has little to do with it. This is a problem of definition, not refutation.