Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

stillwtnforbmrecords t1_iqzr8b2 wrote

Reply to comment by Jim_Panzee in Researcher offers new explanation for consciousness by Dr_Singularity

I disagree that that is an explanation for consciousness at all tho…

Consciousness is not “self-image”. I mean, self-image is NOT a big mystery lol.

The “mystery” of consciousness is the experience of being aware, present, of being “there”. Is an experience we all have, but very few can put into words. Consciousness is the DEEPEST feeling we have.

Having a self-image is… very mechanical, and really does not explain the experience of “being” at all.

Like… I don’t think self-image is even necessary to be conscious at all. I don’t think a fish has self-image, but they are conscious.

1

Jim_Panzee t1_iqzsh0k wrote

>Like… I don’t think self-image is even necessary to be conscious at all. I don’t think a fish has self-image, but they are conscious.

It sure has. It is necessary to picture yourself in a surrounding with obstacles. Simply to solve the problem of moving yourself in the direction of food.

Anyway. If you are able to learn anything from history, than it is that humans attributed anything they didn't understand to some kind of magic. Many many times. And the cases where it was actually magic are 0.

Thunder is not the wrath of Thor. And thinking "this time it has to be magic" is not clever.

0

stillwtnforbmrecords t1_iqzswy3 wrote

Who is talking about magic here?

Just because something is not explainable by science doesn’t mean it’s magic…

Could you elaborate on how picturing yourself surrounded with objects generates consciousness? My view on consciousness has nothing to do with spatial awareness lol

3

Jim_Panzee t1_iqztlva wrote

>Who is talking about magic here?

The initial comment is.

And my view on consciousness is, that it is nothing more than the byproduct of the need to develop spatial awareness. Like shadow is a byproduct of light hitting an object. "lol"

−1

stillwtnforbmrecords t1_iqzx7ui wrote

So you are pretty much alone, specially among actual specialists and people who actively study consciousness.

Spatial awareness may be a component of sapience. But consciousness has nothing to do with sapience. Being self-aware may very well be a simple biological mechanism that emerged from evolutionary needs. Just like all brain processes. So it’s quite remarkable that almost no scientists studying consciousness nowadays believe it is “generated” in the brain. So all in all, that consciousness is not either emergent nor a characteristic OF the brain.

The only people who think this like you are strict materialists who never studied consciousness, and go on the outdated model that consciousness = mind.

Also, I think you misunderstood the first comment a lot man… Just because we might never be able to access the “higher-level physics” doesn’t mean it’s magic.

I for one believe we have limitations as humans, namely logic and our senses. We are in many ways bound by rationality and logic, which likely arose from evolution and not any metaphysical truth. And our senses (even our more abstract senses, such as our imagination) are equally limited by biology and our evolution.

Bound by evolution in the sense that they evolved to help us survive. Not to find “truth”. So they are at best imperfect for that end, and at worst totally useless.

So yes, it’s possible the problem of consciousness is “unbreakable” for humans. We might need some “higher” being to help us, such as AI (and yes I know this contradicts the original comment a bit, never said I 100% agree with them).

4

traumfisch t1_ir00v4i wrote

Then it's a very, very, very, very, very quirky "by-product of a need for spatial awareness" indeed.

1

Jim_Panzee t1_ir07fcg wrote

Have you ever seen Conway's game of life? It's full of very quirky byproducts of very simple rules.

1

traumfisch t1_ir082l1 wrote

Consciousness isn't comparable nor analogous to anything I can think of

1