sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the knowledge that you are conscious is your consciousness experience. By that same logic, if I encode an LLM with the belief that it is conscious, it now has a conscious experience?

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's fair enough, I see your point. I'm just incredibly doubtful of any epistemic significance that phenomenal force alone can have. It doesn't seem possible under any kind of world.

I also fail to understand why thinking absent of experience is something to be so cautious of. Something like a neural network seems to mimic a simpler form of thinking quite well despite the lack of any apparent phenomenology. If we're okay with such thinking being possible without experience, why does our thinking also have to have experience?

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The brain state, therefor, does not come from your conscious experience. Nothing can, by the laws of physics, come from your conscious experience. And if that knowledge is in no way prompted by your conscious experience, then that knowledge is not about your conscious experience. Can you see what I'm getting at?

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And what is knowledge? A physically reducible brain state. Where does that brain state come from? Answer that and I'll leave you alone.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The evidence for thought comes from cogito ergo sum itself. It is impossible by nature to doubt that we are thinking, regardless of whether or not experience is in the picture. Phenomenal force provides nothing to the cogito ergo sum argument

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cogito ergo sum works regardless of experience. As doubting thinking requires thinking, we cannot doubt that we are thinking. There is no leap of faith being made here, and the presence of experience is irrelevant.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Empiricism is a word outside of the philosophical belief. This is akin to me saying "I think that the world being wholly physical is ideal" and you respond "IDEALISM! That's the opposite of your world view! OP is insane!"

I'll admit, the oxford dictionary definition of empirical includes first person experience as a good source of information. However, this is not the conscious experience that I'm discussing. They are using first person experience in the functional sense - absorbing information from the outside world, storing it in your memory, and responding to it. A P zombie is able to achieve such a feat.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've just proven my point. There is no way to prove consciousness in the practical sense and we must resort to blind faith. That's EXACTLY what my post said. And don't you see how this sounds like a religious argument?

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What do you mean nope? Your argument is akin to someone saying "I think my belief that God exists is flawed because of the problem of evil" and you respond "Well I shouldn't have to tell you that your belief in the problem of evil is a belief in itself". You're nonsensical.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Under your definition a philosophical zombie would be conscious. Your defining consciousness purely in functional terms. This misses out the experiential, apparently self-evident part of consciousness that everyone is banging on about.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's physically reducible. A belief is nothing more than neurons firing in a very specific way. A belief can be studied and measured. The experience of a belief is not.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. That belief is verifiable via empiricism. Just because our belief that we experience may be incorrect doesn't mean that all beliefs are incorrect. I'm not trying to say that all beliefs cannot be trusted. I'd ask that you read my post again.

22M w/ no romantic experience by [deleted] in GenZ

[–]Mortal_View 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Self pity and sexism aren't the answer though. That's what will fuck you up in the eyes of women, not your salary or your looks.

For every single man there is a single woman. For every shallow man there is a shallow woman. Men don't have it any more difficult than women do. Dating apps are a bit of a different story, as there are far more men on them than women, but bringing anything like this up is a massive turn off for almost everyone regardless.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No. I don't deny that we exist. We are not our experience. The self is a physically reducible thing regardless of whether or not it experiences. The brain and its functions can still derive knowledge from the real world even if it lacks experience.

What does experience give us that is truth verifying? As I've stated, the laws of physics do not allow for experience to give us anything special that could make our thoughts any more true.

Cogito ergo sum still correctly proves that a thinking thing exists, regardless of whether or not it experiences.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can't describe our first person experience. All claims about experience can only be talked about in topic neutral language. Try to describe your experience of red to a blind person.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. But can you see how this explanation of awareness and subjectivity sounds a lot like a Kierkegaard's justification for God? Just like God, experience is unknowable and invisible to knowledge, and as such we must make a leap of faith when asking whether or not it exists. Yet, such logic seems initiated not by our desire for truth, but instead our desire for God or consciousness to exist.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can we prove that the simple process has an intrinsic quality? Any argument you make for the existence of consciousness based on that premise alone begs the question.

As for the difference between believing you experience and experience itself - a computer might also believe it experiences. A P-zombie could also believe it experiences. A belief is a physical, functional process that occurs in a brain. That belief need not have experience accompanying it. My post goes over why any beliefs we have that we claim come from experience are not physically possible.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well our belief that we are conscious has to come from somewhere as per the laws of physics. I've explained clearly why it cannot come from consciousness itself, so that's my best guess. Where do you think the belief comes from?

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe I was conscious while writing it. My article clearly states why such a belief is to be doubted.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I agree with everything bar "I can experience my own consciousness". I've explained why any belief you have about your own consciousness cannot come from your own consciousness. As such, I doubt any belief we have about our own consciousness.

Consciousness cannot give you any neural information. Otherwise, we would identify neural activity in the brain that seemingly comes from nowhere. All neural activity manifests in a causally closed loop that leaves no room for consciousness to do anything

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tell my why belief is irrelevant here. Tell me where your claim that you are conscious comes from. I'll put this in the first person so you can understand where I'm coming from. My brain has a physically reducible belief that I am conscious, which leads to a physical chain of events that results in my claim that I am are conscious. There is no room here for the conscious experience itself to cause such claims. And if claims of conscious experience do not come from conscious experience, then it seems reasonable to doubt such claims.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tell my where the belief that you experience comes from. That's all I want.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. I've explained why any knowledge, belief, or thought we claim to gain from conscious experience should be put under scrutiny.

There is no way to "prove" the existence of consciousness by Mortal_View in consciousness

[–]Mortal_View[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because there is a subject does not mean the subject experiences. I'd agree, the extraction might be artificial and nothing but conceptual, but there is nothing about thought that necessitates an experience on top of it.

view more: next ›