41–50 of 103 posts
Wait, Wolfram has a physics project? Like, with a lab and everything? Oh, no, not like with a lab. Like with "make some assumptions about what's going on that match Wolfram's pre-conceived ideas, then run some simulations and see if anything that looks somewhat like reality falls out". It's quite a stretch to call that a "physics project". From that starting point, I'm skeptical that anything that falls out is going…
I think of consciousness as a feeling and nothing more. Similar to the feeling of free will, both are an "illusion" and we're not actually aware or free. The universe is made of instructions that everything follows and including us. We believing in awareness is just instructions for how we operate as subsystems of the Universe and like or unlike other subsystems of the universe. I find the idea simpler to grasp if yo…
But to feel is the core of consciousness/qualia. You can postulate free will as an illusion, but is harder with consciousness.
I struggle hard with this topic. I feel like being here, perceiving the world. Yet, if I simulated every molecule of my body, the simulated me would seemingly "feel" the same things, think likewise.
It feels there is more to "me" than what would be of the _simulated_ me. On the other hand I see no way to prove so.
Careful. "Consciousness" may just be a language issue. It seems like a profound concept but it's really just a word with a very vague and complex definition. If someone tried to formalize "consciousness" it would be a technical book about 1000 pages long or something and all we're doing is debating about what goes in the book. It's very similar to the question what is "life?" I mean we understand that biology is just…
The essential feature is subjective experience of sensations, referred to as qualia . I've seen no debate about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
Careful. "Consciousness" may just be a language issue. It seems like a profound concept but it's really just a word with a very vague and complex definition. If someone tried to formalize "consciousness" it would be a technical book about 1000 pages long or something and all we're doing is debating about what goes in the book. It's very similar to the question what is "life?" I mean we understand that biology is just…
The essential feature is subjective experience of sensations, referred to as qualia . I've seen no debate about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
"In philosophy and certain models of psychology, qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweɪliə/; singular form: quale) are defined as individual instances of subjective, conscious experience"
Shows that qualia is defined in terms of "conscious experience." If qualia is an essential feature of consciousness then the Wikipedia definition is a recursive definition.
The definition of the word "Sword" is "Sword" which is true but tells me nothing at the same time.
I like panpsychism: everything in the universe exhibits varying degrees of "consciousness."
This is probably true. There are things definitely less conscious than us. It'll be interesting if it is possible for us to comprehend higher consciousness or if its like a never ending race to the top. Creatures so intelligent they are just beyond our comprehension.
I'm not a philosopher, but I don't understand why we need an explanation for subjective experience, how could we exist without it? If someone were to shove their hand into an open flame, but they also happened to lack the subjective experience of pain, it's conceivable they might not immediately recoil from the flame. This type of reaction doesn't seem compatible with our evolutionary history, the subjective experien…
Not knowing what subjective experience is means there's literally no objective explanation for anything.
Everything you experience - including all of science and math - is filtered through subjective processes.
If you think this is wrong, try to prove that math exists in a self-consistent form without any subjectivity at all.
You won't be able to.
If you read Hilbert's original notes on his Project, he was using words like "intuitive" to describe certain fundamental elements in math. This bothered him, but the problem turned out to be more complex than he expected.
Philosophers have a special word - 'intersubjective' - to describe how these experiences work. Intersubjective experiences are collectively consistent and reliable but are not provably independent and objective. The best you'll get from them is consistency and predictability.
It's easy to confuse this with objectivity, but as members of the human species we can only know our own experiences, and we don't know anything at all about what other possible experiences are available.
So it would be naive - and a denial of the Copernican Principle - to assume that human intersubjectivity is somehow definitive and ultimate.
Wait, Wolfram has a physics project? Like, with a lab and everything? Oh, no, not like with a lab. Like with "make some assumptions about what's going on that match Wolfram's pre-conceived ideas, then run some simulations and see if anything that looks somewhat like reality falls out". It's quite a stretch to call that a "physics project". From that starting point, I'm skeptical that anything that falls out is going…
Wait, Einstein had a physics project? Like, with lab and everything?
Careful. "Consciousness" may just be a language issue. It seems like a profound concept but it's really just a word with a very vague and complex definition. If someone tried to formalize "consciousness" it would be a technical book about 1000 pages long or something and all we're doing is debating about what goes in the book. It's very similar to the question what is "life?" I mean we understand that biology is just…
I agree. The ultimate question of consciousness regards the phenomenological experience of being - what is it? Where does it come from? What does it mean about us? Who else shares it? Any theory of consciousness that doesn’t address those questions may indeed be addressing some version of how we might define consciousness, but it’s redefining the mountain from the foothills - justify it all you like, but nobody’s giv…
Or what else shares it?
Careful. "Consciousness" may just be a language issue. It seems like a profound concept but it's really just a word with a very vague and complex definition. If someone tried to formalize "consciousness" it would be a technical book about 1000 pages long or something and all we're doing is debating about what goes in the book. It's very similar to the question what is "life?" I mean we understand that biology is just…
The essential feature is subjective experience of sensations, referred to as qualia . I've seen no debate about that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
I'm not a philosopher, but I don't understand why we need an explanation for subjective experience, how could we exist without it? If someone were to shove their hand into an open flame, but they also happened to lack the subjective experience of pain, it's conceivable they might not immediately recoil from the flame. This type of reaction doesn't seem compatible with our evolutionary history, the subjective experien…
Because there is nothing but subjective experience. Not knowing what subjective experience is means there's literally no objective explanation for anything. Everything you experience - including all of science and math - is filtered through subjective processes. If you think this is wrong, try to prove that math exists in a self-consistent form without any subjectivity at all. You won't be able to. If you read Hilber…
I'm not following the logic here, unless you're suggesting some type of solipsism. Yes, my experience that 2+2=4 is technically subjective, but I'm not sure what it would even mean to "objectively" understand this to be true, I can't understand how it would have any consequences for any aspect of reality as we understand it.
> Intersubjective experiences are collectively consistent and reliable but are not provably independent and objective. The best you'll get from them is consistency and predictability.
Thanks for this term, TIL. I suppose my question is, what value does objectivity have over intersubjectitivy? I doesn't sound like this type of objectivity is even a coherent concept because it seems like a definitional contradiction to have any experience of objective reality. If something is objective but fundamentally unknowable, it might as well not exist, right?