YawnTractor_1756 t1_j722dv6 wrote
Reply to comment by VoidHuntG03 in What makes humans unique is not reducible to our brains or biology, but how we make sense of experience | Raymond Tallis by IAI_Admin
'Determined by' and 'can be reduced to' are not the same.
zhibr t1_j729zsn wrote
What is the difference in your opinion?
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j72akdo wrote
One can write a dissertation on emergent properties IMO, and I am not a PhD, but allegorically speaking, a wave on the liquid surface is determined by the physical properties of the molecules of the liquid, but cannot be reduced to the properties of a molecule.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j730418 wrote
I get where you're coming from, but that's really just word games and doesn't support "is not reducible to our brains and biology".
> [Waves] but cannot be reduced to the properties of a molecule.
If you studied how water molecules interacted with each other, ie the fluid behaviour that really does come from their physical properties (as dictates by their nuclear properties) then you'd be able to extrapolate how the wave pattern form. The potential for making waves is certainly because of the molecules and we can point to the exact part which dictate it. (It's a phase diagram).
It's for sure a lot easier to see at the macro scale and simply observing a puddle, but saying that emergent properties aren't reducible to their base components is disingenuous.
Here in this context, it amounts to "humans are unique not because of our biology, but because of how our biology is out together." Both of those are within the set of "because of our biology".
General_Rope1995 t1_j74dvag wrote
This is the correct answer. Even an idiot like me understood that to really try to differentiate the two you would be making shit up, they’re basically the same thing, although maybe the reason why someone would wanna try to explain the difference is so that others who don’t understand what the persons point is can learn the point.
TylerX5 t1_j74o1zr wrote
Or it's a veiled attempt to put the figurative foot in the door for an argument that leads into a discussion about the soul. In my experience this is usually the case. By making distinct the biology of consciousness from the experience of consciousness it allows for arguments to speculate the nature of incorporal things. Eventually leading to arguments justifying a belief in the supernatural and eventually religion.
El_Rei_Dom_Manuel t1_j780692 wrote
Bingo. IAI.TV is full of bullshit like this.
iSkulk_YT t1_j74x7vg wrote
My head went to the exact same place. Though, most shit these days ends up getting framed in "how would I defend this from my religious family/friends/etc?" To me, consciousness and free will are illusions, emergent neural pathways or something we use to describe our experience of observing our memories. The more detailed those memories, the "more" conscious.
TylerX5 t1_j7dc6s1 wrote
Proving or disproving consciousness is a near futile argument to attempt because we've yet clearly defined consciousness to begin with. Don't get me wrong. Proving or disproving consciousness is important, but so far the best answers are speculative interpretations of life experiences, and neuroscience. It's hard to accept consciousness doesn't exist when you think about your life (memories as you put it), and it is undeniable the ability to think can be altered quite predictably by affecting brain chemistry or matter (drugs, hormones, tumors, and other brain injuries). Neither of which proves nor disproves the existence of consciousness because the nature of it has no acceptable definition.
I think the conversation would be best progressed by taking the existence of consciousness as an axiomatic statement. Proving the existence of consciousness would then be irrelevant to describing what consciousness is and is not. I believe that is vastly more relevant and useful to current affairs regarding topics such as how to treat AI capable of passing the Turing Test.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j7eyn0j wrote
> because we've yet clearly defined consciousness to begin with.
We've yet to agree upon a definition. Plenty of people have proposed their own personal pet definitions. Some are even clearly defined.
The hold-up isn't technical in nature, it's getting all the religious nuts to accept an answer.
TylerX5 t1_j7giij5 wrote
Could you provide me with a reasonable definition of consciousness that encompasses both real and imagined experiences, as well as their interpretations, while also being falsifiable?
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j7jwt71 wrote
> imagined experiences
I dunno how to explain this to you, but you're unconscious when you're dreaming. That's not an experience you're consciously having. I'm not going to be able to give you definition that includes something it ought not. But you don't like that do you? You're imagining some high-brow phenomenological consciousness which really means "soul", but in like, a fancy way. But there's no such thing. There's just consciousness that's the opposite of sleep. It's a disagreement on the definition.
TylerX5 t1_j7kbews wrote
>consciousness which really means "soul",
I don't think bringing up the concept of the soul is very productive in the conversation about consciousness (as i hinted at in my above comments).
>There's just consciousness that's the opposite of sleep.
How do you explain the phenomenon of lucid dreaming? It is true that current medical use of the terms conscious and unconscious do mean sleep and awake, it's not universally true in every medical context. It would be more accurate to say it means aware and unaware. You can be awake yet unconscious (there are drugs that prove this) and asleep yet conscious (just ask anyone who's suffers from sleep paralysis).
>There's just consciousness that's the opposite of sleep. It's a disagreement on the definition.
Correct me if I'm wrong here but you're defining consciousness as the opposite of asleep and asleep as the opposite of consciousness?.. Given that you're in a philosophy subreddit do you see why that is a poor answer for a definition? Assuming sleep is also a well defined phenomenon when it most certainly is not. Of course we have a practical definition of both what being awake is and what being asleep is that works very well in typical scenarios. But those definitions fall short when you ask what it means to be conscious. Normally I wouldn't care about it, and move on to something more interesting but the near potential of Turing Test passing AI has me pondering this question again. If can AI simulate a person requesting human rights, can simulate what a human response of being abused, can simulate being aware of its surroundings, can simulate episodic memory, can simulate being aware of being conscious and unconscious (powered on versus off), then is it not conscious and deserving of rights in which all conscious beings are? Or is human consciousness special? Or is our definition of consciousness incorrect?
>I dunno how to explain this to you
I can tell you're fun at parties... But seriously if you disrespect me again I'm leaving the conversation.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j7nh6zd wrote
Well I apologize. A lot of people bring a whole lot of baggage that really makes a mess of the conversation. NOT getting it out the way leads to a whole lot of very unproductive conversation.
>How do you explain the phenomenon of lucid dreaming?
What explanation? You're not conscious. That's not an example of consciousness. It is not an example of, nor explained by consciousness.
How does the 1996 movie Space Jam explain lucid dreaming? It's unrelated.
>It would be more accurate to say it means aware and unaware. You can be awake yet unconscious (there are drugs that prove this) and asleep yet conscious (just ask anyone who's suffers from sleep paralysis).
mmm. No it wouldn't. You're off base here. You're very specifically conscious during sleep paralysis by definition. It happens after sleep. If you are aware, you're awake, and you're conscious. What drugs makes someone "awake and unconscious"? What you are correct about is that it's not an immediate on/off thing. There are stages in between as your brain boots up. You can be "minimally aware". Likewise, dope and alcohol reduce consciousness because they literally impede your senses and your mental functions. Caffeine and cocaine increase it, briefly. But any amount of consciousness would be, by definition, no longer unconscious.
>Correct me if I'm wrong here but you're defining consciousness as
Can do.
Consciousness is any system of active sensors feeding data to memory (of any sort) with any amount of intelligence that can/could act upon it. Remember that ants have some amount of intelligence. Amoeba hunt down their prey.
>Assuming sleep is also a well defined phenomenon when it most certainly is not. Of course we have a practical definition of both what being awake is and what being asleep is that works very well in typical scenarios. But those definitions fall short when you ask what it means to be conscious.
Wow dude you are working REAL hard at arguing with yourself here.
>then is it not conscious and deserving of rights in which all conscious beings are?
No. Just as ants and amoeba are conscious and don't have the rights that people have. Like the concept of "life", it's not all that special. No one in their right mind argues that your gut bacteria aren't alive and yet we don't blink an eye at killing thousands of them routinely. Does AI deserve rights? Maybe. But don't hinge the whole thing on consciousness, even if we could all use the word the same way.
>Or is human consciousness special?
Not very.
>Or is our definition of consciousness incorrect?
Yes. Almost everyone pretends they're special because of ego or ordained by god, but I repeat myself.
>But seriously if you disrespect me again I'm leaving the conversation.
Pft, we're on reddit.
TylerX5 t1_j7ulc1f wrote
>Consciousness is any system of active sensors feeding data to memory (of any sort) with any amount of intelligence that can/could act upon it. Remember that ants have some amount of intelligence. Amoeba hunt down their prey.
Depending on how intelligence is defined by that definition of consciousness all of the animal kingdom (and most of the other kingdoms of life) is conscious. As well as any self teaching AI.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j7v68px wrote
Yes.
Show me how your consciousness is fundamentally different than that of a cow.
We're probably smarter than most cows, but then again you and I are probably smarter than most people. That's not really a road anyone wants to go down.
You still owe me What drugs makes someone "awake and unconscious"?
C'mon man, I said consciousness is being awake. The obvious rebuttal is explaining how they're two different things. If you're just going to skip over the hard questions, you've already left the conversation even if you're still here.
TylerX5 t1_j7vqvr1 wrote
>You still owe me What drugs makes someone "awake and unconscious"?
This is an example of one but there are many others in the vein of date-rape drugs that have the effect I'm referencing. At the right dosage people can be awake yet very little to none of their experience during intoxication is stored into memory. That's essentially being unconscious and awake at the same time. Another example? Alcohol when people "black out" while drinking.
>C'mon man, I said consciousness is being awake. The obvious rebuttal is explaining how they're two different things. If you're just going to skip over the hard questions, you've already left the conversation even if you're still here.
I have a clearer idea of what it means to be awake and asleep than I do conscious and unconscious. I believe both are biomechanistically determined. Awake and asleep are actively adapting cyclical states regulated by the circadian rhythm (which I'll assume you're familiar with).
Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of episodic memory and linguistic (or perhaps symbolic?) activation thereof. We can talk ourselves into accessing our memories as well as talk ourselves into explaining them. I guess if I were to take a stab at a precise definition of consciousness, it is the act of using symbols (language and representation of language) to engage memory processes.
Unconscious is the state of a being capable of consciousness who is temporarily unable to do so.
Not conscious is the state of a being that lacks the ability to be conscious.
>Show me how your consciousness is fundamentally different than that of a cow.
We have episodic memory and symbolic language to access it, which emerges as consciousness. That would be my best answer to that question at this time.
noonemustknowmysecre t1_j7w9noe wrote
>At the right dosage people can be awake yet very little to none of their experience during intoxication is stored into memory.
Now that's something. Yeah, similar to "black-out drunk", where they simply don't form any lasting memories of their actions.
KEY FACTOR: They do not RETAIN any memory of events. Hand someone wacked out of their gourd a banana phone and say "ring ring" and they'll answer it. For that to happen they have to have at least some persistence of state between "that's a phone" and "what do I do when I answer a phone". And that state is stored in memory. They're not brain-dead. GHB impairs memory. It doesn't just stop memory all together. ...Yeah, this has been studied. The booze stops the transfer from short-term to long-term memory. Remember what I said about memory being "of any sort"? Even if you later forget, it doesn't mean you weren't conscious when it happened.
I mean, that's a real good try. But the science doesn't back it up.
>How are they different? > both are biomechanistically determined?
...movement? wtf does the mechanical properties of biology have to do with sleeping? We lay still when we sleep? Surely you're trying to talk about something else. Bruh, don't attempt to pull wool with dem dar big'ol words. You're chatting with someone who can call bullshit on it.
>Consciousness seems to be an emergent property of episodic memory
(And sensory input going in otherwise it's all just solipsism. And something to make sense of it. YEAH! Isn't it GREAT when we find out we're all on the same page and agree with each other? )
>and linguistic (or perhaps symbolic?) activation thereof.
I'm willing to posit that whatever you think "symbolic activation of memory" entails, it might as well be called "intelligence". Consider, an image of a snake. If a cows sees a snake, there's a jumble of electrochemical signals which the cow has been trained to know SYMBOLIZES a danger.
Language though? My first blush is to call that out as just plain silly. What's special about language? Humans (and most social animals) have portions of our brains dedicated to language, sure. But this is a weird thing to hinge consciousness on. Social sharks are conscious, while solitary polar bears are not?
>We can talk ourselves into accessing our memories
I mean, so can smells. Sounds. Being in the dark. We've taught children raised by wolves language later in life and they confirm there's still memory even without language. I mean, how else would anything ever learn. I'm really not following this marriage between language and memory that you've made.
>> Show me how your consciousness is fundamentally different than that of a cow.
>We have episodic memory
Why on earth would you believe cows don't? (You understand "episodic" just means long-term memory that we can review, like an episode, right?) This is real silly for anyone who's ever put a cow inside an electric fence. They certainly learn how the fence works. Likewise, smart cows are a problem in feedlots and such. When one learns how to get a latch open, the others all learn it. And, you know, retain that knowledge. In long-term memory. Which can be handy for the later when they try to open a latch.
>and symbolic language to access it
Animals have language. ...no promises about cows specifically though. I mean, they're pretty dumb. But moving the discussion to crows doesn't change much here.
GalaXion24 t1_j75ph9i wrote
I think the soul is a very useful concept, as is the sort of material/immaterial dualism that tend to come with it, when it comes to describing and understanding the human experience, which is ultimately a subjective experience above all. Wouldn't dream to claim anyone should believe in this literally though.
colored0rain t1_j75qz2k wrote
I think this whole conversation is reducible to the existentialism branch of philosophy. Yes, human experience of reality is very subjective, which means that a subjective view of what consciousness is exactly is appropriate, considering it is the only view we will have. If we've no choice but to live accordingly, as though our minds are something more than biology, then it really can't be disingenuous to do so. We are trapped by subjectivity and our experience of consciousness does feel like and could be described by the concept of a soul (subjectively, not literally). If the universe and its laws actually cared and would prefer that we perceive ourselves as meat machines rather than as persons, then it shouldn't have made us to perceive ourselves as persons.
TylerX5 t1_j7cik0a wrote
Why would you assume we are distinct from the universe? All of what we are is just a fraction of it in every sense
colored0rain t1_j7clq02 wrote
Well, I don't assume that we are distinct from the universe. I understand that what you said is true. However, for those without that knowledge, it is natural for the human mind to assume that it is distinct from other things. And even those who understand that still don't or can't act according to that information*,* because their biological and psychological programming is such that they act in contrast to reality: like persons, distinct from the rest of the universe, as though determinism doesn't exist, etc*.* It's a funny thing that humans necessarily act against reality, except that it still the reality of our existence and doesn't ever really contradict reality.
It's a whole thing in Albert Camus' concept of the Absurd, which he talks about in The Myth of Sisyphus.
TylerX5 t1_j7ddgei wrote
>... It's a funny thing that humans necessarily act against reality, except that it still the reality of our existence and doesn't ever really contradict reality.... >
If determinism is true (which there is a very strong chance it is) how could one who believes in determinism ever judge someone as acting against it without assuming one has the choice to do so?
colored0rain t1_j7dhy3r wrote
I know, right? It's such a funny paradox because of that. It's THE Absurd. We attempt to resist against reality as a function of our very nature. There's no choice but to act as though there is one when there isn't.
I've spent too much time studying existentialism lmao
TylerX5 t1_j7dpbek wrote
Existentialism is important. Faith (non religious) is a necessity for moving forward when your heros die, your dreams are broken, and your truths are invalidated. Existentialism provides the dialogue to help one come to terms with a universe that doesn't provide one with true certainty.
Saereth t1_j74yhfh wrote
Reminds me of Sagan's quote,
"The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together. " It's not too say that the sum of the whole is reducible but those interactions can be understood as a system regardless.
[deleted] t1_j732r0h wrote
[deleted]
Coomb t1_j72huxb wrote
>One can write a dissertation on emergent properties IMO, and I am not a PhD, but allegorically speaking, a wave on the liquid surface is determined by the physical properties of the molecules of the liquid, but cannot be reduced to the properties of a molecule.
Of course it can. The phenomenon of periodic motion that we call a wave is merely the result of individual molecules reacting to applied forces according to their properties. The wave has no existence outside of the molecules. Any properties that we attribute to it (e.g. amplitude, phase, frequency) are properties which exist only because of, and in principle can be computed from, the properties of each individual molecule. Conveniently for us, those properties are such that we can describe the motion of a large enough chunk of molecules using simple equations to a good approximation. But that's all it is, an approximation.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j72ksa5 wrote
Yes wave is result of interactions of individual molecules, no one argued that, but wave is not just any result of interactions of individual molecules, it is a certain pattern, and the pattern is not a property of single molecule in the wave, it is a property of a whole.
That is why a wave cannot be reduced to "interactions of individual molecules, phase, frequency" etc. Because just random interactions do not produce wave, you need a certain pattern which does not belong to any single molecule.
The final definition of a wave then will be a pattern of interactions of single molecules in a form that makes a wave. So "a wave is... a wave".
Coomb t1_j736yrj wrote
A pattern can't be a property of a single molecule because patterns, by definition, involve repetition in space or time or both.
But so what?
In what sense is the wave not reducible to the physical motion of the molecules? Every molecule that you conceive of is being part of the wave is simply bouncing around in its environment and responding to the forces to which it is subjected. As it happens, if you have a bunch of molecules in a fluid and you provide a particular external intervention, you can make the molecules move in a repetitive way. Are you saying that somehow creates a new entity that can't be explained by looking at its parts? If so, how many particles do I need to create a wave? Actually, even a single particle can oscillate in a wave. If you trace the time history of a single molecule in the ocean as a wave passes over it, you will see the wave in the motion of that molecule. So what is new when you have a bunch of them doing it at the same time?
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j73aze0 wrote
>In what sense is the wave not reducible to the physical motion of the molecules?
Generalized enough everything can be described as a transfer of energy. If you accept that 'transfer of energy' can serve as the definition of any process (wave, fire, typing comments on Reddit), then we are on the same page, and we now have universal and useless theory of everything.
But if you insist that we cannot generalize like that because it omits important differences, then I repeat again: physical motion of the molecules is not a wave. Wave is a physical motion of the molecules in a pattern of wave.
Foxsayy t1_j73dnv7 wrote
>Wave is a physical motion of the molecules in a pattern of wave.
Yeah. If I wave my arms in the air, it's just a blip. If I'm in a stadium and raise my arms in sync with others so that we create a wave around the arena, that's a wave. The wave is not any one of us, but a collective effort of individual parts orchestrated in a particular way.
Can we reduce the wave to a single, immutable part? No. But we can't even do that for atoms. The whole being the sum of its parts does not mean that the whole has features that are mysterious or inexplicable in parts.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j73eu1w wrote
>Can we reduce the wave to a single, immutable part? No
I'm glad we ended on the same page.
>The whole being the sum of its parts does not mean that the whole has features that are ... inexplicable in parts.
It can have features that are inexplicable in parts. Subatomic particles are a great example of that.
Foxsayy t1_j73gny0 wrote
>It can have features that are inexplicable in parts. Subatomic particles are a great example of that.
Potentially. But before recent times, entire sun was inexplicable. The human heart was inexplicable. The motion of the wind and waves was inexplicable.
You're putting forth a modified God of the gaps arguement.
Coomb t1_j73m957 wrote
>>In what sense is the wave not reducible to the physical motion of the molecules? > >Generalized enough everything can be described as a transfer of energy. If you accept that 'transfer of energy' can serve as the definition of any process (wave, fire, typing comments on Reddit), then we are on the same page, and we now have universal and useless theory of everything. > >But if you insist that we cannot generalize like that because it omits important differences, then I repeat again: physical motion of the molecules is not a wave. Wave is a physical motion of the molecules in a pattern of wave.
What about "wave" is not reducible to the motion of the fluid particles?
Are you just saying that we have an abstract concept of a wave? Because that's true but pointless in the sense that we can't interact with abstract concepts, only physical realizations. There is no real wave which can be described exactly using abstract parameters associated with a general wave.
[deleted] t1_j73w31c wrote
[deleted]
hairyforehead t1_j74j0vo wrote
Im not sure if you're being serious or playing devil's advocate. Could you reduce Bethoven to motions of atoms in the void, or Newtons equations to ink molecules on paper molecules? All of the internet is just various states of transistors?
zhibr t1_j747y6j wrote
Ok, but in regard to brains an biology, is this just a modified hard problem of consciousness or something else?
70Ytterbium t1_j730h80 wrote
True. Not to mentions the sad reality that physics as we understand now, and possibly forever (though hopefully not!), does not possess the faculty of explainings the underlying (or if you prefer fundamental) properties of reality upon which it manifests.
Ortega-y-gasset t1_j73xcqv wrote
Billiard balls smashing across the table isn’t the same as a game of pool, although the smashing of the balls determines the game, the game doesn’t reduce to it.
[deleted] t1_j737mn2 wrote
[deleted]
zhibr t1_j74846z wrote
Sorry, that doesn't help me understand the difference in case of brain, biology, and experience.
Swampberry t1_j73kww5 wrote
Philosophically, the distinction between "determined by" and "can be reduced to" is related to the idea of determinism versus reductionism.
Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events, including human actions, are determined by previous causes and conditions, and thus are inevitable. In this context, "determined by" refers to the idea that the outcome of a certain event is fixed based on certain conditions or causes.
Reductionism, on the other hand, is the idea that complex phenomena can be explained in terms of simpler, more fundamental components. In this context, "can be reduced to" refers to the idea that a complex problem or concept can be simplified and understood in terms of its basic building blocks.
Semantically, the difference between "determined by" and "can be reduced to" is that "determined by" implies a fixed outcome, while "can be reduced to" implies a potential for simplification.
In conclusion, "determined by" and "can be reduced to" represent different philosophical and semantic perspectives on the nature of causality and the relationship between complexity and simplicity in the world. /ChatGPT
General_Rope1995 t1_j74e9qa wrote
Lol chat gpt
General_Rope1995 t1_j74eblb wrote
Are you paying for it? It says the servers are busy when I try to use it.
Swampberry t1_j76omkh wrote
No, it's down every now and then but most often I can access it with no problem! If you're in an American time zone, maybe there's more pressure.
Hermiisk t1_j7543ut wrote
"What makes humans unique is not reducible to our brains or biology"
Does not Brains and Biology encapsulate everything that lets us make sense of experience?
So you're not reducing anything by making that statement, imho.
Sounds a bit like OP is saying you cant reduce earths existence to the observable and unobservable universe.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j75dmzq wrote
I am not an article author, all I said was that two things are not the same, but article argument does make sense to me, since even an executable file on a computer cannot be reduced to the states of bits on hard drive despite hard drive encapsulating it entirely.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments