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
eh? that's the whole crazy hardcore materialist view in a nutshell! we must be talking at cross porpoises.
― lana del boy (ledge), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:53 (six years ago) link
my cat doesn't even know its tail is part of its body
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:53 (six years ago) link
my cat does
― Louis Jägermeister (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:54 (six years ago) link
why is your cat concerning itself with my cat's tail
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:55 (six years ago) link
every day i take my cat on "the trip of the 4 mirrors", carrying him around my apartment. he hasn't recognized himself yet but i am determined to freak him out.
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 20:57 (six years ago) link
I had a cat that grew to hate its tail so much that its vicious attacks on it eventually became life-threatening and it had to have said tail amputated. It was a freaky scene, man.
― albvivertine, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:00 (six years ago) link
seems like even a rudimentary pain reflex would prevent an animal from devouring part of itself without it necessarily differentiating a sense of 'self' from 'other'.
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:03 (six years ago) link
hmm that's a rudimentary self-concept too, though!
"if i bite something and feel pain, then it's myself. if i bite something and don't feel pain, then it's not myself"
― the late great, Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:05 (six years ago) link
My inclination is there's a spectrum of consciousness, and it's a large enough spectrum that the far left end of it is so different from the far right end as to appear like it's two separate phenomena. Humans are on the far right side, as far as our current knowledge and experience goes. That gives the illusory impression that it is unique, or "freaky shit". But when you follow the spectrum incrementally to the left, it doesn't seem quite as mysterious.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:05 (six years ago) link
― Karl Malone, Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:57 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
my cat doesn't have any reaction to mirrors, but i try not to anthropomorphize too much - he's not as visually focused as a human, he recognizes me by smell, sound of voice, and general size and shape rather than facial recognition. and navigates using whiskers, his tail etc. why should he recognize a mirror?
― Louis Jägermeister (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:06 (six years ago) link
i think you
yes you
are only imagining your consciousness
including all of the imaginary interactions with the imaginary ppl
― the clodding of the american mind (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:06 (six years ago) link
I think this is anthropomorphizing. Animals don't have thoughts like that (or at least I don't think they do! Def not in English, I'm pretty confident of that). They don't need a concept of "myself" in order to respond to pain.
― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:08 (six years ago) link
vs.
"if i bite something and feel pain, it is painful. if i bite something and don't feel pain, then it's not painful"
― A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 14 March 2018 21:10 (six years ago) link