Hacker News Reader

Comment by EGreg | Hacker News Reader

Let's translate your sentences to illustrate what I mean.

What it is like? So you are comparing one entity experiencing something to another. Experiencing is a process that takes place inside the entity and among its component parts.

Know you are that thing - every thing is itself, if it has well defined boundaries. Knowing something is just having access to that information and good reasons to believe it to be correct. Here we have a tautology - that a thing is itself - so it doesn't require much to know that. What you are probably more interested in is a mechanism that can take advantge of that knowledge in various ways. Like self preservation.

Humans are self conscious.

Crabs are self conscious too because they act with a purpose of self preservation, which requires knowledge of what is them and what is not them.

Crystals do not have this knowledge or do not have a mechanism to act on it in a way that manipulates semantic symbols.

View on HN

> Crabs are self conscious too because they act with a purpose of self preservation, which requires knowledge of what is them and what is not them.

It's a bit more complicated. Self consciousness is the ability to contemplate mental states, some philosophers say. Crabs do not contemplate their own mental states, they simply act and feel.

Ok well there you go. I was basing it on your earlier definition.

So define the word contemplate.

But do you see how defining things and using the subject and object makes it hard to ask any of the major questions?

> Ok well there you go. I was basing it on your earlier definition.

Sorry, but it was my first comment on the thread. You are confusing me with the guy that posted earlier. I apologize for entering in the middle of your conversation.

> So define the word contemplate.

Contemplate: to observe something and to entertain thoughts about it.

Imply that self preservation is an example of self consciousness is not sufficient for me. Plants too react to stimuli and they don't even have a nervous system (edit: neurons are not a sine qua non condition, obviously. I was only pointing to the fact that simpler organisms react to the environment, it is one of the most basic evolutionary strategies). It is necessary something more.

As the poster before me said, there are boundaries. They can be not clear, but they exist.

Guuz's comment does not change the earlier definition (regardless of who stated it.) What it does do is point out a flaw in your argument from that definition to your claim that crabs are self-conscious.

what is it like to be something which experiences and know you are that thing.

According to this definition, crabs are self conscious.

As this is one of several places where you have asserted the same claim, one response is sufficient: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16041077

> Crabs are self conscious too because they act with a purpose of self preservation, which requires knowledge of what is them and what is not them.

I guess my office building is self conscious then, as it has a sprinkler system.

Please see sibling comment.

Please explain its relevance.

Definitions matter. The guy updated his, to exclude your sprinkler example.

It seems, from the other thread, that there was no change in an original definition, but it would be moot anyway, as the sprinkler example follows the reasoning of your claim that a crab is self-conscious, which in turn follows from the confusion, over the difference between being a thing and knowing that one is that thing, in this paragraph:

"Know you are that thing - every thing is itself, if it has well defined boundaries. Knowing something is just having access to that information and good reasons to believe it to be correct. Here we have a tautology - that a thing is itself - so it doesn't require much to know that. What you are probably more interested in is a mechanism that can take advantge of that knowledge in various ways. Like self preservation."

This line of thought leads to the self-consciousness of buildings in exactly the same way as it leads to the self-consciousness of crabs.

Well I was tacitly pointing out the inadequacy of that definition for the term, while running with it.

Anyway my original point stands :)

But you did not point out the inadequacy of the definition of the term, tacitly or otherwise; instead, you demonstrated the flaws in your own distortions of that definition. Consequently, it seems unlikely that there is a validation of your original point (whatever that was) somewhere in there.

I clearly disagree.

The clarity of your disagreement has not extended as far as a response to the counter-argument that is implicit in my original post in this thread. The final step in your argument that jjaredsimpson's definition of self-consciousness leads to the conclusion that crabs are self-conscious is this:

'Crabs are self conscious too because they act with a purpose of self preservation, which requires knowledge of what is them and what is not them.'

I pointed out that this works equally well for the claim that buildings with sprinkler systems are self-conscious, a conclusion that you have tacitly agreed is ridiculous. There's no difficulty in seeing what flaw in reasoning led to this conclusion: it is in the claim '[self preservation] requires knowledge of what is them and what is not them', where, in fact, all it needs is a suitable response to a stimulus that may signal an existential threat. This claim is not in jjaredsimpson's definition of self-consciousness; it is an independent axiom that you inserted into the discussion.

If your original point is that any discussion can be stalled by the injection of bogus arguments over the definitions of words, then I would have to agree that you have proven it by example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com