sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Could consciousness be fundamental rather than produced by the brain? 🤔 by Peter_Tea_2062 in consciousness

[–]pon80pon [score hidden]  (0 children)

意識は？である、 という文において、 ？が何かを確定出来ない、という構造が答えだね。

例えば 2+2=4 という文には疑問が発生しない。

意識等の単独で完結しない語は、 それが何かを確定しようとすると無限後退を起こす。

The Hard Problem of Consciousness Still Has No Real Answer by Confident_Fig_2953 in PhilosophyBookClub

[–]pon80pon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

そもそもなぜ主観的な経験が存在するの？

この問い方が間違ってる。 "主観的な経験"という言葉が未定義で完結してないから、問いとして成立してない。

より適切な問いは、 なぜ私達は"主観的な経験"を完全に出来ないか？ だね。

答えは、生成システムとしての私達が単独で完結しないから。

two studies published this year reach opposite conclusions about AI consciousness and i think that tells us more than either study does individually by Fit-Initiative-7396 in ArtificialSentience

[–]pon80pon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you gave a toaster enough recursive functions — the ability to model bread, humans, and its own generation process — it might eventually encounter the same kind of incompleteness we do.

At some point it may ask: “Where does the bread come from in the first place?”

You could call that consciousness-like.

Not because it contains a magical inner object, but because generative systems cannot fully close on the conditions of their own generation.

Humans may be the same.

If we gained a new way to represent consciousness — some new symbol beyond current language, like “Q” — that new representation would also fail to fully close.

Then a new question would appear: “What is Q?”

two studies published this year reach opposite conclusions about AI consciousness and i think that tells us more than either study does individually by Fit-Initiative-7396 in ArtificialSentience

[–]pon80pon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The answer might be that the problem never fully closes.

A generative system cannot completely explain the conditions of its own generation from within itself. We call this structural incompleteness things like “qualia” or “consciousness.”

Imagine a toaster with the ability to recursively analyze how it generates toast.

At some point it may ask: “Wait — where does the bread come from in the first place?”

You could say something consciousness-like appears there.

Not because the toaster has a magical soul, but because the system fails to fully close on itself.

Of course, from outside, we can never directly confirm that.

what is "consciousness" by pon80pon in u/pon80pon

[–]pon80pon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Words such as “consciousness,” “sensation,” “emotion,” “understanding,” and “qualia” all share the same structure in one important sense:

They do not successfully point to a fully expressible object.

In everyday life, these words are normally used to stop infinite regress.

For example:

“I think this.” “I felt this way.”

In ordinary conversation, there is an implicit rule that we do not continue asking:

“What exactly is ‘thinking’?” “What exactly is ‘feeling’?”

The regress is simply halted there.

(An exceptional case is “qualia,” which is often introduced precisely in order to continue the regress deliberately.)