The internet? I think beetles and carrots, as life forms, are in front of it in line, but the internet may be more conscious than granite slabs or buckets of sand.
― Giant Purple Wakerobin (Aimless), Tuesday, 14 April 2015 02:13 (nine years ago) link
i think of comment threads as the collective unconscious
― Mordy, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 02:14 (nine years ago) link
How do I know you all aren't just bots?
― ©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 14 April 2015 02:32 (nine years ago) link
youtube comments are basically primal scream therapy
― ©Oz Quiz© (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, 14 April 2015 02:33 (nine years ago) link
"When I squint just right," Dennett writes in 2013, "it does sort of seem that consciousness must be something in addition to all the things it does for us and to us, some special private glow or here-I-am-ness that would be absent in any robot... But I've learned not to credit the hunch. I think it is a flat-out mistake, a failure of imagination."
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/13/the-consciousness-deniers/
― o. nate, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 01:24 (six years ago) link
The last couple mornings I've been having that "how strange it is to be anything at all" doubt on the walk to work brought on by slightly out of body experiences. I've always felt my "consciousness", or at least my abstract thoughts, as a a sort of activity in the occipital area whereas the rest of my head feels empty. These last couple days that occipital "thought generator" has felt a little unplugged. Probably brought on by my bad sleeping patterns this week.
― carrotless, turnip-pocketed (fionnland), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 09:25 (six years ago) link
when i read things like that and think for a second i get these weird full body spasms - i get them in lots of other situations when i'm contemplating non/existence tbf - i think i've developed a reflex response to observing my own objectivity
― as the crows around me grows (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 09:52 (six years ago) link
love2GalenStrawson tho
― as the crows around me grows (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 10:27 (six years ago) link
"that" being fionnland's post btw
great piece, this for me is the crux:Crucially, though, there’s no reason to give the way the brain appears to physics or neurophysiology priority over the way it appears to the person having the experience. Rather the reverse, as Russell pointed out as early as 1927: he annoyed many, and incurred some ridicule, when he proposed that it was only the having of conscious experience that gives us any insight into the intrinsic nature of the stuff of the brain.
― lana del boy (ledge), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 13:35 (six years ago) link
If I think about this I get into a loop: if we define consciousness as a distinct thing, but it's actually a number of behavioral factors working in concert, then maybe that distinct thing is a gestalt of behavioral factors?
It's not as if we have any way to define the entire list of behaviors/qualia/whatever.
― mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 13:56 (six years ago) link
a nice floaty cloud that hardens under pressure iirc
― the clodding of the american mind (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 14:33 (six years ago) link
Crucially, though, there’s no reason to give the way the brain appears to physics or neurophysiology priority over the way it appears to the person having the experience.
well sure, no reason to if you're willing to discard scientific method
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 16:31 (six years ago) link
Bad logic there, granny. There is nothing in that statement that requires or even suggests discarding scientific method or even disregarding it, but only failing to prioritize it when discussing consciousness. The fact that observation itself is a function of consciousness makes observation of consciousness a paradoxically recursive activity.
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 16:39 (six years ago) link
um no, bad analysis Aimless. if you're giving subjective experience equal footing with scientific method, you are in essence discarding it. which is fine! just don't pretend otherwise.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 16:47 (six years ago) link
Is there a school of thought that sees consciousness as a field that our brain/mind is adapted to like our eyes and the visible spectrum, or is that just stoner-think?
― dinnerboat, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 17:03 (six years ago) link
Sounds like stoner-think, but maybe I don't quite get what you're saying. Overall there are all sorts of fun hypothetical ways to frame it I suppose.
― Evan, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 17:19 (six years ago) link
That it's outside of us and something we tap into (and experience subjectively) rather than something we generate. Admittedly, this may be little more than a head-of-a-pin idea.
― dinnerboat, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 17:36 (six years ago) link
if you're giving subjective experience equal footing with scientific method, you are in essence discarding it.
In logic this is called "asserting the conclusion".
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 17:36 (six years ago) link
i thought giving subjective experience equal footing with scientific method was called bro science?
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 17:47 (six years ago) link
nbd
― F# A# (∞), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 17:50 (six years ago) link
Q: How can it be proved that consciousness is what is being measured when you measure consciousness?
A: You can only correlate the subjective experience reported by the subject with whatever you are measuring. This can lead to a hypothesis about consciousness, but not a hypothesis that is falsifiable, because the subjective experience of the subject is unverifiable. All the subject needs to do is to lie and the experimental data becomes worthless. And you cannot decide if the subject is lying.
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 17:58 (six years ago) link
arah its all relative lads ynow at thn end of the day an egg is still eggshaped isnt it lads
― the clodding of the american mind (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 18:00 (six years ago) link
drop the egg and look again
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 18:02 (six years ago) link
this is your brain on drugs
― the clodding of the american mind (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 18:02 (six years ago) link
if u drop an egg u have butterfingers
― F# A# (∞), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 18:35 (six years ago) link
― dinnerboat, Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:36 PM (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
What about it makes you consider this possibility? Always curious. Not meant as snark at all.
― Evan, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 18:46 (six years ago) link
collection unconscious, right
― mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 18:48 (six years ago) link
collective, darn autocorrect
― mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 18:55 (six years ago) link
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:58 PM (fifty-seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
I don't think you're 100% wrong here, but we can also, e.g., use fMRI to allow an AI to draw an image it's never seen before straight from someone's brain. That seems to me to run straight past an individual's subjective description of their experience and into their "consciousness." I suppose they could like about what they were thinking of, but that just weights the results more towards the objective observation than the subjective one.
― Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:00 (six years ago) link
yea but even then, idk if just "thinking about stuff" is necessarily tied into the nature of consciousness. obviously physical changes such as pounding a bottle of gin alter the way our consciousness works. but you're still 'present' in there somehow.
― frogbs, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:05 (six years ago) link
xp or we put human assumptions of perception into the process that creates the image that aren't universals, or the image created by the AI maps to the image we see visually but to non-humans there's no relation
imo those are both ridiculous hedging arguments but that may be my consciousness talking
― mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:06 (six years ago) link
This can lead to a hypothesis about consciousness, but not a hypothesis that is falsifiable, because the subjective experience of the subject is unverifiable
this to me is the core of the "freaky shit" argument. there is no reason why we can't be "philosophical zombies" - essentially robots with no real consciousness, just a set of programmed responses to stimuli. and yet (if we reject solipsism) we all have the sensation of consciousness. we all have a subjective experience that can't be - or hasn't yet been - explained by materialist views of consciousness.
― the late great, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:09 (six years ago) link
if we allow that lobsters have consciousness, why not robots?
https://pics.onsizzle.com/why-why-was-programmed-to-feel-pain-4118663.png
― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:24 (six years ago) link
if you're giving subjective experience equal footing with scientific method, you are in essence discarding it.but you can't have the scientific method without subjective experience. every single thing that we know to be 'objectively' true is filtered through subjective experience.
― lana del boy (ledge), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:47 (six years ago) link
tbh you have to draw a line where you're willing to accept things as objective otherwise you end up with something worse than the simulation hypothesis
― mh, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:51 (six years ago) link
In that case, back to solipsism I go!
― Millennial Whoop, wanna fight about it? (Phil D.), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:52 (six years ago) link
the other day I was thinking, how can we be sure we will die if we can't really be sure if we are not dead already?
― Rabbit Control (Latham Green), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 19:52 (six years ago) link
there is no reason why we can't be "philosophical zombies" i think there are reasons why zombies may not be possible but i find zombies confusing. like, dennet thinks they're impossible even though in his view that's basically all we are? idk they just seem like an extra layer of unjustifiable intuitionism so i prefer not to think about them.
― lana del boy (ledge), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:17 (six years ago) link
I think you mean "affirming the consequent"? Anyway the statement was "there’s no reason to give the way the brain appears to physics or neurophysiology priority over the way it appears to the person having the experience." And I'm saying yes there is a reason: if you want to follow the scientific method. If you don't, cool!
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:30 (six years ago) link
Where is the cutoff between life that has consciousness vs life that doesn't? If we grant that it's an actual thing and humans have it, what else has it? Chimps? Dogs? Toads? Fleas? Trees? Bacteria? Amoeba? Does all life have it or just animal life? Does all animal life have it or just some animal life? How would we know? What would be the hypothesis for why some life has it and some life doesn't? Does it even matter?
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:35 (six years ago) link
iirc dennett hypothesizes that all animals do to some extent, based on the idea that no animal, no matter how low, will devour part of itself to feed itself. for example, a hungry lobster won't chew off it's own claw. so he claims all animals have some self-consciousness, i.e. some sense of self and not-self
― the late great, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:39 (six years ago) link
every single thing that we know to be 'objectively' true is filtered through subjective experience
The subjective experience of many humans. Consensus. Repeatability. Scientific method is just best means we've come up with to reduce subjective bias.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:40 (six years ago) link
So if a robot was programmed to not devour (destroy? salvage?) itself and to recognize "it" vs "environment", it automatically has consciousness? Idk that seems like stretching the definition of consciousness to point where it's a useless concept.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:43 (six years ago) link
xp don't you think it sounds a bit odd to say my conscious experience gives me reason to doubt i have conscious experience? for one thing it saws off the branch you're sitting on.
― lana del boy (ledge), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:45 (six years ago) link
xp in fact in the same paragraph dennett does suggest that such a robot would, in that case, have something like a self-concept and a rudimentary consciousness
― the late great, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:46 (six years ago) link
this is my favorite book about consciousness
https://alexandria-library.space/files/Ebooks/WorldTracker/Physics/Consciousness%20Books%20Collection/Hofstadter,%20Dennett%20-%20The%20Mind%27s%20I.pdf
― the late great, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:48 (six years ago) link
?? no idea where you got that from, ledge
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:49 (six years ago) link
the relevant bit on lobsters and robots begins on pg 265 (the reflection)
― the late great, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:52 (six years ago) link
Does it even matter?
Excellent question.
no animal, no matter how low, will devour part of itself to feed itself
I'm not sure if this is absolutely and universally true, e.g. eating the placenta might present a problem for this assertion. But point taken.
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:52 (six years ago) link