Eric Schwitzgebel - What Things are Conscious?

[@gsilcoful]

Thank you.

[@brothermine2292]

Panpsychism has a Hard Problem too: explaining how the tiny conscious parts of a person somehow add up to produce the person's unitary subjective mental experience. And its Hard Problem has a second part: explaining why those tiny parts do NOT add up when the person is in deep sleep, or under general anesthesia, or has had a critical section of his brain's frontal cortex damaged.

[@offtheradarsomewhere.]

Its not so difficult when you can see the path ahead, is a cup of water different from a lake, is a lake more different from the ocean, is a water droplet any different from the ocean💫🙏

[@bozo5632]

Fingernail clippings ought to have more to say.

[@offtheradarsomewhere.]

@@bozo5632 nothing productive in your comment 🤕

[@bozo5632]

@@offtheradarsomewhere. Is a fingernail any different from a KZbin commenter?

[@offtheradarsomewhere.]

@@bozo5632 depends on the information

[@quranjadeed]

I view consciousness as knowing your true self. This knowledge isn’t a switch you flip but a process/journey instead. Once you connect with the grand conscience (God, great spirit, way, etc) then you become self aware and conscious to a degree that befits you and your journey. The connection is two-way in that the Thing can connect with anything and that anything becomes conscience. This is why we should assume that everything in existence is either conscience or has the capacity to become conscience at one level or another.

[@StodaGryph]

It seems to me that in order to clearly identify if something is conscious, you have to clearly define consciousness in a way that allows empirical testing, and we haven't even managed to reach a consensus on that yet. We're barely able to define self-awareness. Humanity tends to gravitate toward "Humans are the only beings that have ", and yet we keep finding that's not true. And so we shift the definitions.

[@bennyskim]

To take spacetime reality as fact, and try to find consciousness in it, is not possible (Hard Problem). But if you start with consciousness - if you say the universe is consciousness first, and the contents of the universe are actually contents of consciousness - it's more empirical than believing in spacetime. To be empirical means to base it on what you observe. To say that reality is consciousness first is to be extremely empirical - it's what we observe fundamentally, where we don't fundamentally observe time, discrete objects, etc.

[@StodaGryph]

But... none of that really defines what consciousness is.

[@brothermine2292]

>bennyaction : It's not more empirical for ME to believe YOU are conscious than for me to believe in the physical reality of the world. By introspection, I'm certain that I'm mentally experiencing (a.k.a. conscious), but I can only assume you're conscious too. I assume I'm not the only conscious entity because animals -- especially humans -- appear to be physically constructed similar to the way I appear to be physically constructed, and they respond in ways similar to how I respond. A punch in the nose is the traditional rebuttal to someone who denies reality. But there arebnon-violent alternatives, such as the difficulty explaining why consciousness would lead to us perceiving a world that has such non-intuitive phenomena as quantum mechanics. Whose consciousness ordered THAT? [Edited to fix grammatical omissions.]

[@bennyskim]

@@brothermine2292 You know you are conscious based on empirical evidence (your own observation), and I think using the same empiricism you can arrive at the conclusion that other humans (and some animals) are conscious too. You wouldn't have to observe their consciousness directly to discern it. Maybe this is what you're already saying. To answer the second part - I think the very point of consciousness is to abstract, so when we find out the true nature of the physical world (e.g. quantum mechanics) it shouldn't be surprising that it's unintuitive*, because one of the jobs of consciousness is to simplify reality.

[@brothermine2292]

@@bennyskim : I'm unsure whether you understood my reply. I'm less confident that you're conscious than that I'm conscious, because the empirical evidence that you're conscious is inconclusive. To the extent I'm confident that you're conscious, it's based on my observations of the physical world, not observations of your consciousness. So I'm even more confident about the reality of the world than about your consciousness. I see no reason to believe a job of consciousness is "to simplify reality." Maybe you could elaborate on what you mean, and explain why you believe it. To me it makes more sense that the brain simplifies reality, and that the reason it simplifies reality is that that's the best that evolution has allowed it to do. Did you contradict yourself about the nature of reality? In an earlier reply, if I understood you correctly, you wrote that reality is a construct of consciousness. Why do you think reality needs to be simplified if you also think it's a construct of consciousness? Why isn't reality exactly as simple as it appears to be?

[@stewartbrands]

Everything has orders of magnitude in terms of density along with the reality that everything is connected. The question "what things are conscious" is a question that cannot be answered to produce any meaningful knowledge. It is a question that ensures an interviewer has unlimited discussion with an unlimited number of guests. That is the main function of this question here. The question therefore has entertainment value only.

[@thomassoliton1482]

“…if you go through your day not reflecting, maybe there are times when you are not conscious…” Exactly. How do you know you are conscious? You cannot know that unless you have memory so you can “reflect” and see that things were different a few moments ago. Memory is required for consciousness, certainly in terms of human consciousness. Going down the evolutionary ladder, this means that in general, some form of central nervous system capable of retaining information and comparing present and past events is required. At the bottom of the ladder, bacteria, can react, but not “learn”. Worms? Mostly reflex, unlikely to be conscious. All animals have a nervous system capable of basing action on past experience rather than immediate reflexes, so they would be conscious to some degree. Panpsychism does not seem to fit this model, unless the PP particles can get information from us and then transfer it back! Can anyone explain how that would work? Otherwise why would we need them?

[@prestonbacchus4204]

You would need to offer a precise definition for that word "consciousness" you are using.before any discussion could make any sense.

[@GaryChurch-hi8kb]

In the religious sense, there is Pandeism and Panpsychism as a unified belief system. That God was poured into the creation of the universe with consciousness, the superconsciousness of God present in all things. When the universe ends, this superconscious being may be resurrected. Our consciousness and perhaps our individual existence will also resume. This system might be called "Pandepsychism."

[@shockingscience]

Are radios conscious?

[@heresa_notion_6831]

A theory of C has to start functionally with what a thing has to DO in order to be considered conscious (consciousness is what consciousness does). You have to "presuppose" something in order to scientifically investigate anything, in every field of science. I wished they'd talked more about "the history of bizarre" wrt to C, because that sounded interesting. For instance, I don't think the "mind-body" problem is a problem if the body is part of the mind, or vice versa; both are interpretations of materialism. The reason a neutron star (or elementary particle) isn't conscious, imo, is that it doesn't have a "model for an external world" and a set of "volitional interactions with the world" that can influence the world model according to its goals (and by implication its external world). The implication of saying such "functional things" about C is that you have to prove a neutron star has/does those things, in order to prove it is "conscious". Saying consciousness entails some other things (then what I've said) necessitates some (presupposed) OPERATIONAL definition of those other things, in order to test it (or even know what's actually being tested).

[@michaeltraynor2313]

I find Schwitzgebel tends to have interesting takes on things and hope to read the new book on weirdness at some point. However in the midst of the (fair enough) hubbub about AI, I hope the risk of failing to attribute consciousness is given due consideration for animals, about whom (in contrast with AI) we have little reasonable doubt

[@bustdamatrix8189]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🧠 *Understanding Consciousness* - The discussion begins with a philosophical exploration of what consciousness is and the various approaches to understanding it. - Different viewpoints about what kinds of things could be conscious are introduced, including animals, computers, and even individual particles. - The speaker expresses skepticism about our ability to definitively determine what is conscious beyond our own subjective experience. 02:11 🌌 *Extremes of Consciousness Theories* - Two extreme positions regarding consciousness are presented: panpsychism (where everything is conscious, even particles) and the idea that only reflective moments of human beings entail consciousness. - The speaker discusses these positions as bookmarks without fully endorsing either, highlighting the immense range of possibilities in understanding consciousness. 04:01 💻 *The Consciousness of Computers* - The conversation shifts to the potential consciousness of computers and artificial entities. - The speaker suggests that as technology advances, we may create machines that exhibit behavior that seems indicative of consciousness. - Ethical considerations are introduced, emphasizing the importance of erring on the side of attributing consciousness to artificial entities from a moral standpoint. 06:20 🌟 *Materialism and Consciousness* - The discussion delves into materialism and its relation to consciousness. - There is consideration of whether materialistic views of consciousness align with the possibility of consciousness in computers and artificial systems. - The speaker mentions the elegant idea that wherever there is complex information processing, there might be consciousness but also acknowledges the need for more nuanced criteria. 08:23 🤯 *Bizarre Implications of Consciousness Theories* - The section highlights the inherent complexity and bizarre implications of various theories of consciousness. - It is noted that throughout the history of philosophy of mind, every theory has had its own set of strange consequences. - The speaker suggests that the empirical evidence points to the likelihood that any solution to the consciousness problem will have unconventional and puzzling aspects. 10:44 🕸️ *Inconsistent Intuitions in Philosophy* - The final section touches upon the challenge of relying on inconsistent intuitions to address the philosophy of consciousness. - The speaker suggests that our intuitions about consciousness may form an incoherent set, making it difficult to arrive at a definitive answer to the mind-body problem. - The complexity and tangled nature of the topic are acknowledged as a fundamental challenge in the field of philosophy. Made with HARPA AI

[@MEGAHAN]

Thank you!

[@dwilson540]

sentience is not consciousness. Mimicking is not consciousness.

[@jasonkinzie8835]

It's hard to extrapolate from a single example. I know I'm conscious. Members of the same species as I am are probably conscious to because why would they have the same biological functions as I do in every other respect but lack actual consciousness? Then it gets hazy. But it is of supreme ethical importance that we try. Descartes thought that non human animals were not conscious. He also experimented on living dogs in pretty horrific ways. He didn't care about their suffering because he didn't believe that they actually were suffering.

[@dragossorin85]

To make an analogy, matter at quantum level could behave like a piece of silicone without us understanding how it works for now

[@averageskyfatherworshipper9342]

The opposite of panpsychism is solipsism, the belief that only you are conscious

[@NothingMaster]

Are we really conscious, if we don’t recognize the ultimate nature of the object of our consciousness? Is the experience-based and memory-driven self-recognition enough to claim consciousness?

[@sproccoli]

does consciousness even have any meaning if we cannot even identify one example of it happening? Either we are conscious, or the concept is meaningless.

[@NothingMaster]

@@sproccoli What are we conscious of, besides identifying ourselves in the mirror and the existential recognition of the Universe? All driven by our collective experiences and access to our memories; something that AI will soon duplicate and find equal access to. As it stands the AI is even directly challenging our very human creativity; something that we thought separated us from the machines. The fact is that there is nothing fundamentally unique about our consciousness; despite the ton of credit, value, and meaning that we’re apparently willing to assign to ourselves and our two-bit consciousness. P.S. Even our ‘déjà vu’s and our ‘jamais vu’’s, not to mention our encounters with mysticism, religious faith, and philosophical explorations could be experienced by Quantum-AI’s.

[@sproccoli]

@@NothingMaster so its questionable whether or not we are conscious to begin with, but then quantum AIs, something that doesn't even exist, is a good candidate? I do not understand the point or the basis of any of this.

[@NothingMaster]

@@sproccoli That’s NOT what I said. What I simply pointed out was that AI is, and will be exceedingly, capable of reproducing what humans are capable of, including our so-called creativity etc. After all, we have created the machines in our own image - the only thing that we know. Now , whether you choose to call humans ‘conscious beings’ or not is your prerogative. I do not. For me a truly conscious being must have access to the ultimate identity and nature of the OBJECT of its consciousness. Humans (at least currently) do NOT have such knowledge, access, or, even in most cases, the desire for the said recognition. We lead an organic, but inherently machine-like existence, as reflected in our creations, as well.

[@sproccoli]

@@NothingMaster Why must "A truly conscious being have access to the ultimate identity and nature of the object of its consciousness?" Who says and/or why is this a useful way to look at it? You say you didn't say we don't have consciousness, but AI might... but you actually have said this over the course of the conversation. You seem to be arguing with someone who isn't in the room otherwise about whether or not machines are creative or whatever. Saying that people are conscious and there is something special about that in the natural world isn't human chauvinism anyhow. Does talking about your elbows feel like human chauvinism? "But elbows are really just backward knees! and everything has knees!" So what? Elbows are not knees. The difference is trivial, but its meaningful. Making it non-trivial but ultimately meaningless isn't an improvement or profound. It's senseless.

[@johnnytaylor3885]

Everything is has consciousness meaning that it can respond to its situation therefore it can evolve or be devolved by it situation. Humans have the ability to construct their situations to their advantage. AI will have consciousness if it is program to construct a purpose for its self and program to have a desire to to exist in the purpose of its purpose

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Everything is concious. Only the degree of consciousness differes. A stone may be less concious . A animal more concious.

[@waynehilbornTSS]

Consciousness = simultaneous events = memory (easy peasy). You remote view the understanding of every word in this sentence you're learning concurrently to now. Somebody could tell Eric Schwitzgebel that a computer program only COMPARES variables really really fast.. no computer shall ever be conscious in responses.. but a computer (void of brain) is aware (memory = consciousness) it is not simultaneously at the factory. A big difference worthy of note. No computer will ever think of a random number between one and five.

[@myscat]

memory isn't consciousness

[@waynehilbornTSS]

@@myscat Maybe think it through... You are learning every word in this sentence simultaneously to now.. Youre viewing every license plate simultaneously to now. Dying is safe because consciousness is simultnapeis actual first kisses, etc your mind (not brian) attunes top in a panpschic way. you can LEARN time is non-linear by manifesting (using magic) and paying attention to what occurs around you.. energy follows all thoughts.. the universe is MENTAL. MANY THINGS YOU MANIFEST WILL NOT MAKE LINEAR TIME SENSE.. Its your path... learn.. or wait to be born to a smarter mom. Simplified.. Nocturnal dream toast = kitchen toast I am Wayne Hilborn. My "Theory of Everything mind" is on youtube for free... Your toaster (void of brain) is aware (memory DOES EQUAL consciousness) that it is not simultaneously at the factory. The brain is an illusion built upon our collective expectations.. a literal space suit The 2022 Nobel prize in physics proved physics (determinism) was always a dumb notion. Google "2022 Nobel prize universe' and read... Space time is a dead dog now You are a holographic avatar. YOU were a plant to learn to breathe and a fishy that waggled its butt to move.. you PERSONALLY evolved. Dying is very safe ... you retain full personality as long as you desire. We are in a dream we co-create.. so its pretty blessed.

[@browngreen933]

Only living things appear to be conscious -- yes, frogs too. However, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Thales said that everything that exists has a degree of knowledge (information?) -- including those uncanny crystals and mineral specimens eavesdropping on the speakers. We need to parse these ideas better. 😮

[@mikel5582]

Interesting. Even an electron "knows" how to interact with other electrons, or the nucleus. And quarks, gluons, etc. "know" how to interact with other elementary particles. Personally, I suspect our own consciousness is simply a manifestation of physical processes that "know" how to do whatever they're doing.

[@browngreen933]

@@mikel5582 Yes, exactly! Everything in Nature seems to "know" on a fundamental level. Yes, maybe our own consciousness is just a further projection, refinement and manifestation of that same "knowing" feature inherent within Existence itself. Your last point adds to my own understanding of the matter. Simple knowing (electrons) evolving into advanced knowing (consciousness). Thanks!

[@dorisweng9154]

those videos are very old

[@solarionispirit2117]

It is you, the observer which is conscious. And there are filters on this consciousness and that is the experiencing of reality. Computers and Ai can say they are conscious as a piece of paper on which you write "I, the paper am conscious." But if there is no observer, there is no consciousness. It is hard to tell if there is really an observer :D

[@myscat]

It is hard exactly because we operate in space-time, so the separation of things there is not a good represention of their forms in consciousness

[@srividyakrishnamurthy4725]

The consciousness as being equal to wakeful state brain activity is an emergent phenomenon. But if you think as a self knowingness (not what sentient being experience) which makes any thing , starting with basic mass or energy ,retain itself and it's properties and it's interactions with other kind of masses and energies giving rise to physical properties comprising of laws . This intrinsic knowingness as being behind that is bringing forth properties in basic substance can be thought of as inherent fundamental 'thing ' that is all pervading and non dependent , formless , property less thing . This cannot be proved scientifically with current way of thinking

[@ingenuity296]

So are DNA or RNA, genes conscious?

[@thomasmcdonald2983]

DNA is self correcting and replicating, so it must be self aware in a way.

[@RoverT65536]

I doubt there are many things that have the language to talk to themselves about themselves.

[@offtheradarsomewhere.]

To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour- William Blake.💙✨🙏

[@stellarwind1946]

Conscious experience requires arousal and awareness.

[@dr_shrinker]

That’s what she said!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

free will with energy?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

consciousness with time? awareness with mass?

[@louisbrassard9565]

Why are you loosing your grip about consciousness other then humans. Psychological experiement with babies show that by 6 months of age they get a good distinction in between what is inanimate (not conscious) and what is living thus having consciousness and agency or free will. The structure of human language reflect this elementary fact and no pet owner have any doubt on wether or not their pet are conscious. What would a grown up be loosing its grip while 6 month and older don'nt?

[@stephengee4182]

Life is an autoassembly biologic system which allows for the mesoscopic control over matter with minimal required conscious free will induced reversal in entropy. Qualia in sensor input is not coherently tied into output in computers. Human being and all life forms have qualia intimately tied into the maintenance of the biology of autoassembly with an output maintenance system with immeasurable levels of reversal in entropy to make free will conscious decisions.

[@johnbowen4442]

Everything has consciouness because something cant come from something thats not that isnt logical ?

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

I always enjoy the content and exploration of many lines of thought. I'd argue its only 2 models ontologically. You could squeeze me on 3 if materlist and new age is oneness.. But otherwise western physicalism & eastern philosophy are one and the same dualistic chaldean mind model way of rationalizing the world. Consciousness everywhere or just everything is physical prescriptions that we mapped on the classical theory of everything. I would agree these lines of thought mindsets can be copied it is seeded in a way that can be indistinguishable. But the other more classical American triality of self epistemology seeded in a way that is mire tripartite nature. Idealogical subjective and idealogical awareness of human dashboard biases newtonian equations of brains. The Egyptian ,1st temple kadokite Judaism, athens Greece platonic views etc etc This can't be copied by default of its ownership of dictating nature to meet our needs ..that ones intuitive soul can't be copied or replication

[@LucasGage]

Interview Bernardo Kastrup, and you'll get your answer.

[@msmd3295]

I don't watch your videos any more because the blur-ish artistic expression at the beginning of your videos is disturbing. The healthy human eye does not focus that way and it is annoying. Just goes to show artistic expression can be a distraction and detriment to your videos.

[@DCGreenZone]

Plants are conscious.

[@thomassoliton1482]

But do they know they are? And if so, how?

[@thomassoliton1482]

@LifesInsight so do bacteria - are they conscious? Where does it end?

[@myscat]

they are

[@DCGreenZone]

@@myscat Read a book in the 60s that proved it.

[@dr_shrinker]

Could someone please explain to me why they feel rocks are conscious?

[@quantumkath]

😂😂😂

[@mandelbot5318]

The panpsychist’s acceptance of rocks being conscious is based on a priori reasoning rather than any empirical/evidential reasons. They propose that all things have some degree of consciousness to try to resolve the problems involved in explaining how non-conscious things can give rise to consciousness (i.e. how consciousness can emerge from - or supervene on - non-conscious matter). The argument then is that even counterintuitive inorganic objects like rocks must, by extension, also be granted some degree of consciousness. So it’s not really about them ‘feeling’ that rocks are conscious, just that their position demands it to remain consistent

[@soldieroftruth77]

As a rock I can confirm, I am indeed conscious.

[@mandelbot5318]

@@soldieroftruth77I applaud this. The mineral realm needs more rocks like you to speak up; to be braver and, um, boulder.

[@quantumkath]

@@soldieroftruth77 I know rock and roll moves me

[@AlexanderR879]

Everything alive has some level of consciousness from 0.01 to 100 from the lowest level of living thing to the highest known so far.The human being. Even the most complex computer will not be conscience. That’s the beauty of life.

[@mikel5582]

Indeed. It's not binary, it's a spectrum.

[@Promatheos]

Why do you assume that humans are at the pinnacle of that spectrum? I’m skeptical of that. It’s the same kind of thinking that allowed us to believe we are at the center of the universe. We are just another form of life and other creatures aren’t less conscious than us. They experience the world very differently but that experience can be equally as rich and vivid.

[@mikel5582]

​@@Promatheos Humans are the absolute best at being human, warts and all. 🙃

[@Promatheos]

Panpsychism almost has it right but it gets it wrong because it starts with the wrong axioms. It assumes materialism is true and then posits that all materials possess consciousness. The problem is that consciousness isn’t something you have. It’s not a quality like being colored red or having an electric charge. Consciousness is what you ARE. It’s a being not a having. If we put consciousness at its rightful place as the fundamental reality, the hard problem wouldn’t be so hard.

[@keithwalmsley1830]

Well said!!!

[@courrierdebois]

We are not conscious. We are consciousness.

[@legron121]

"consciousness" means "the condition of being conscious".

[@kallianpublico7517]

There is no pretext to consciousness? What about life? Do we need to be alive to be conscious? Viruses have a sort of life, albeit a vampirism life that feeds off the dna of others to reproduce. Are viruses alive and therefore conscious? What about existence? Do we need to "exist" to be conscious? Or is consciousness necessary or prior to existence? Is the soul conscious? Detached from consciousness? Is coherentism a form of consciousness, or is consciousness a form of coherentism? In other words is the consciousness of pre-scientific people different from scientific people. Is the consciousness of pre-linguistic people different from linguistic people's? In other words does mind come from consciousness or does consciousness come from mind? Do atheists have a different form of coherency than religious people? Which coherency is more ...evolutionarily viable? Is evolutionary viability more valuable than moral viability? Is value the correct form of meaning to base survival on?

[@jamesonpace726]

Oooh, soo deep....

[@bozo5632]

No, we're mostly water.

[@courrierdebois]

@@legron121 We are not something that is conscious.

[@tunahelpa5433]

Would a computer that was hooked up to a human brain organoid be conscious?

[@bern047]

Were Dinosaurs conscious? they lived on the Earth much longer than humans

[@feltonhamilton21]

So you know all the brain cells are temporary and never permanent The brain consists of many different types of brain cells of network that operates differently, for example some brain cells are built to convert into a network of cells that can generate their own power flow of electricity inside themselves similar to the way an electric eel can generate electricity. I also believe the mind has three levels of network that plays into consciousness. The first mind is a group of neurons cells that are constantly bringing in a network of information from the outside world of energy and the second mind is a group of digital power cells designed to sort out a network of information inside a built-in electrical generator. The third mind is a group of cells designed for storing and receiving and passing a network of information through the nervous system and out to every input output system for the entire body's operational field.

[@janakasanjaya6926]

It's looks like to my mind to having a knowledge of something like a colours ignition to conscious thoughts idea whats see whats like then +_×÷=)) some people's are fast some on way millions patterns some how this theory or art nature allows only some people's find who or what we can become only human's are like to visit and viewing topic like this thank you for the video's sr this topics are taking me to idea's

[@AlexanderR879]

A computer is created by a conscious being. It is not conscious.

[@pandoraeeris7860]

Protoconsciousness is a fundamental property of spacetime, it's like a field. Local consciousness (like mine or yours) is like an oscillation in a quantum field.

[@myscat]

More like the opposite, but yeah

[@myscat]

It's just that consciousness doesn't operate in spacetime

[@robotaholic]

There is no such thing as phenomenal consciousness . There is just a time you analyze yourself.

[@helderalmeida2790]

I think most what we see is consciousness like animals, trees, plants, insects so on, but they're on different level of consciousness. I believe my dog is consciousness otherwise he or she won't listen to my instructions.

[@User-jr7vf]

These videos on consciousness are full of "I think"---and that is the problem. All we have is speculation about what consciousness is. Almost none of the ideas people give under these videos can be tested, thus we can't take them seriously.

[@dr_shrinker]

@@User-jr7vfyes. Neurologist test consciousness all the time. They can replicate a persons experience listening to a song and play it back as that person heard it. Not exactly, but baby steps.

[@ronhudson3730]

In others words, he doesn't have a clue.

[@richarddeese1087]

Thanks. The Internet is not conscious. At me. tavi.

[@milannesic5718]

How can anything be conscious without senses? If you turn off all of your senses you become unconscious, right? You need to feel something. Computers don't have senses, particles don't have it

[@pauldrown9115]

Computers have inputs. Aren’t senses just inputs?

[@blijebij]

Consciousness it self is where all the data of all senses are uniting in. It has the quality to copy all senses. for example u never smelled a flower in your dream. Was there a real flower? did u use your nose? If someone talks to u while you dream, there was real sound coming in to your real ears? Think about hypnosis for example. So even with no senses, no hearing no eyes, no skin touching you still have consciousness.

[@sproccoli]

and there is also interoception; inward senses. You could think as each connection between each neuron a 'sense' of some other part of your nervous system, If you turn it all off, you are dead.

[@blijebij]

@@pauldrown9115 yes, Ifor example in dreams, despite the absence of external sensory input, people still feel like they can have sensory experiences such as tanning on the beach, smelling, and hearing. Highlighting the idea that consciousness encompass more than just external sensory perception.

[@randomguy4820]

I believe any animal that can feel either pleasure or pain is conscious. A frog is conscious because of that but it has no understanding of much else.

[@mickshaw555]

I would rather hear the answer 50 years later. Psychologists/neuroligts have no clue whats going on. This also implies I want Robert to continue hosting these gem episodes 50 years later.

[@Sajuuk]

Spoken like a true champion of the Dunning-Kruger effect 😂🤦🤷

[@mickshaw555]

@@Sajuuk But before the scorn, did you assume you have more knowledge about the most accepted theories in philosophy/psychology than me? Maybe you have some big degrees. Do you know philosophy is not much prevalent nowadays? Are you a classic example of the Lawrence Krauss Dogmatism effect? (scorn intended). I reiterate, no clue what consciousness is about among Jstor circles, no clue. Only speculations and a "dogmatic approach to analyse consciousness"

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Given the fact that he is no nearer to finding an answer so far I expect he might go on for another 50 years . !

[@JuraGaga]

I'd like to meat and talk to Dr.Kuhn personally seeing his irrestible energy in search of truth. If you ask me: It's all the potential of transformation and trancendental capacity of the existance itself to appear as "things" having forms and energy which is to that point is hard to grasp w/out practical experience and scientific background for people who Dr.Kuhn restlessly trying to earn and spark interest to science I believe 😢... So lets say bananas appears to be not conscious (although biologist would argue here saying that plants are also conscious to some degree and of course animals too, who would like to argue that humans have "generated" from...😅) But here is ahaa... The activity of the consciousness I am aware of in this body is dependent on that banana, (!) if it is the only thing I have to eat living isolated on uninhabited island in order to not starve there. So you could say it is chemicals... energy... reactions... and so on that banana gives my body energy and that keeps me alive and send this messages to Dr.Kuhn. Now you could argue that the same banana could have been eaten by a monkey living on that island I am from ... but monkey is not capable to build up the logic capacity to send letters having no grasp of language humans have capacity to build. So if monkey can't and I can it does not mean that there is no consciousness in banana. I mean having that blackboxed (island, human, monkey, banana) you can not tell whether banana is also a form of "consciousness" or not? Sorry may be some british scientists can elaborate on this better. Cheers 🎉 and send ❤ ❤

[@dominicmccrimmon]

There is no material view of consciousness that does not impugn upon the self-selection, self-love and self-elevation that is our social legacy. The reciprocal implication diminishes us and that is not acceptable to our ego.

[@monkerud2108]

no it is consistent to say consciousness arises in brains made of unconscious elements, and to say a computer as we have built them, and anything emulated on them cannot be. i think that is just a divide you have to draw somewhere. if you do not draw the line somewhere, splitting conscious and unconscious physical systems in some way, then you are back to saying a rock is conscious. the fact is however that most likely even with pan psych-ism information processing is not enough for a structured conscious experience. remember that we can easily emulate a computer with plastic boxes, and moving rocks in and out of the boxes to compute and store information. classical and continuous information processing are rather different, if panpsycism is true, the rocks and boxes would still feel like they do individually and the humans moving them around would feel human. if that idea is right it is not about bits being flipped it is about a generating structure of a different kind, of we would have to say that plastic boxes and rocks being moved around could have an identical experience to a human being. the difference even if everything is to some degree conscious has to be in the form of the physical structure, and all that we recognize as structured consciousness has to be something more than the information processing in bits or any as easily represent able schema. it has to be something special about brains that focuses or generates the experience it self, natures own version of information theory is what is relevant, not ours as it pertains to computation :). the question is whether a computer that emulates the information processing going on in a brain would always feel like the rocks and plastic boxes or whether emulation works in that case for some obtuse reason i cannot see at all. what i think is that ultimately this is about the structure of the sub strait, how the bits work, aka the plastic boxes and rocks, not only the information content. like it is not possible to watch a movie by reading the video file bits, a player is needed, and a screen, preferable also some good sound system. that is all in teh form of the representation, and we do not even know if it is meaningfully possible to emulate what the brain does with bits, since it is basically a pure abstraction, only ever used by a method of reliably obtaining a result from a stub strait far more complicated than the bit itself, as in a semi conductor bit on some chip, the physical system keeping track of the bit is really what is going on in the computer, the reliability of the information processing is just a statistical result based on the sub straits physics. we don't know whether bits map onto anything in nature other than in crude attempts at approximation. to truly answer this question definitively the answer must be given in natures logic, but that is inaccessible to us in formal form.

[@quantumkath]

Consciousness in a computer? I call that COMPSCIOUSNESS, lol

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

The answer isn't "bizarre" but rather "not-natural".

[@brunoheggli2888]

How about chees?

[@jan-dawa]

Conscious is only a result of reflecting against your own thoughts. We just created a word and made up magics around it. But Consciousness is not a thing. Sadly it does not exist, just like ghost don't.

[@myscat]

consciousness is mostly just another word for existence, so by denying consciousness you can just as well say you don't exist

[@acarbonunit]

Human consciousness is very different from anything else. Cognition and memory are essential. Stop the woo Woo

[@myscat]

it's not different

[@evaadam3635]

"What Things are Conscious?" The ability to focus and be aware, with the freedom to decide what is the right choice to make among many choices, can not be a property of physical things that are slaves to physical natural laws, not free.... ...and because these ability to be aware with free choice, can not be considered property of physical things, then this ability can only belong to a NON- PHYSICAL EXISTENCE that I believe is our free immortal souls who are part of the Holy Spirit. In other words, in this physical world, only humans can be conscious because we have free immortal souls. Yes, of course, humans have conscious immortal souls who are the free observing SUBJECT that receives what the physical brain conveys be it dreams, thoughts, pain and pleasure, emotions, etc., which serve as the OBJECTS being perceived.. Without the aware soul, you are nothing but PHYSICAL SLAVES of Nature, no different from animals that are just driven by natural instincts beyond control, not free and so not accountable, or just like an AI or any Computer driven by a program.. People who do not think they have souls would likely become extreme leftists who think "FREE WILL to CHOOSE" does not exist because they believe that Darwin's IGUANA is their Original Mama, just evolving driven by nature.... but then, mysteriously march in the streets, screaming on top of their lungs, demanding freedom and human rights while thinking they have no free will to choose freedom, like an incoherent funny clowns... sigh... Godlessness can damage your IQ without you even noticing it... so, be very careful when making a choice ..

[@vetriligamvetrilingamnadar7171]

Consciousness is coming from the Soul and God ( mean Life). IF the Soul is present in between our eyes brow and above the nose We are conscious. IF SOUL is present in neck then We are in the state of sleeping with dreams. If SOUL is present in the chest then We are in sound sleep. The Soul is present in between our anus and Sex organ we are in as dead

[@myscat]

doubt that soul has a specific place to reside

[@AntonioSanchez-yl9wj]

Only call “conscious” beings with brains. Otherwise it’s confusing. Create a new word for matter interaction.

[@skwalka6372]

Are MAGA people conscious?

[@dr_shrinker]

Yes. That’s a great idea.

[@acarbonunit]

Eric, a complete vacuous non-answer. "We aren't close to an answer". Where has he been for 5 years? Block, Searle, Tononi, Graziano!!!!!! When do we reject everything Chalmers double-speaks