I call bullshit. Could someone please explain what I'm missing?
For Scott Aaronson's take on "Integrated Information Theory": https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799
Human suffering presumably has some sort of limit based purely on our physical makeup. Suppose though the very concept of subjective suffering could be modeled in some way. Is there any law in the universe that says there is a limit to suffering, pain (or pleasure)?
Could an investigator of the future test out an algorithm on a conscious entity modeled in software, just to see what the mathematical limit of pain is? Maybe that's what Hell is...
Oh, and as you might imagine, there was a pretty considerable amount of material that existed in both of those classes.
Once you actually open your mind to this idea, you will begin to see it everywhere, and with practice be able to connect, communicate, and derive mutual benefit. It,s up to you to take the first step, though.
Of course, you can also choose to remain in the safe comfort of materialism. I know from experience that it can be a very lonely place. I wish you a happy journey, wherever it may lead.
sometimes they just end up ignored and/or laughed at
However, here's an experimental method you may find helpful in your quest for knowledge: Find a creature, any creature, who appears in your life somehow... a cat, a dog, a worm, a rat, an insect, anyone you notice.
Rack your brain as hard as you can until you begin to see some semblance of feelings and desires in them, as well as a way in which you can help them achieve it. Now, go ahead and do that thing, and do your best to ensure that it works out.
When you're done, start paying attention to what happens to you in your daily course of existence. If you're into mindfulness meditation, here is where you apply that.
If you like, please return here and report your results, I'd love to hear from you! If the thread is already closed, you can find a way to contact me via my profile.
My only point is that in the popular articles I've seen on consciousness, that discuss IIT, I have not, over many years, seen any description of a test of the theory, or even a statement of how it could be tested.
Say, for instance, that what IIT measures isn't consciousness but memory. It tells you that when you take general anesthetic, the IIT measure in the brain decreases. But it's hypothetically speaking possible that when you get anesthesized, you're still aware and feel everything that's happening to you (in the sense of having qualia), only that it never gets recorded to memory.
The result is the same: it appears, in retrospect, that you lost consciousness. But you can't prove that you actually did, only that your memory of the past behaves as if you did.
This seems fundamental, unless we through some future discovery can nail down what consciousness is. The consciousness-status of past me is just as opaque as that of other people.
Each of our experiences are composed of the experiences of (billions?) of other people. We aren't islands.
And do neurons know about us? Well, they only know what they know. I think what they know could potentially be an empirical question. Some neurons are far more complex and connected than others.
All a single neuron does is pass a signal to the synaptic cleft in response to a chemical or electrical signal at the other end. It's a simple subunit of a larger system.
Saying a single neuron is more complex than a worm is like saying a cat6 ethernet cable is more complex than a blast furnace.
Neurons can have millions of mitochondria [1], which they dynamically move about the cell. Neurons are like amoeba with dozens of pseudopods when young. Amoeba are more complicated than worms, in terms of degrees of freedom, no?
Check this video of fetal neurons movin' about. So cute! https://youtu.be/hb7tjqhfDus
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncir.2016.0002...
Inner life of a cell: https://youtu.be/wJyUtbn0O5Y
Indeed, I’ve always suspected your observation may be the best definition of ‘life’ we currently have; namely, living systems are composed of parts that are more complex than the whole.
It’s a hard concept to articulate.
But, as you obviously know, the principle is obvious.. it doesn’t stop with the neuron; I would suspect the neurons membrane or its organelles are more ‘complex’ than the neuron itself.
By non-materialist I mean I do not see matter as distinct from information. I believe the only thing that exists is information. What is information? It is structure and meaning and pattern and potential. Information is entwined with entropy.
Meanwhile, atoms have been working without as much as a fucking smoke break for literally billions of years! >_<
I don't claim to be conscious. I am alive and awake and thinking and sensing, etc.
>Consciousness does absolutely objectively exist, or at least I can say it does for me.
This sentence appears to confuse subjective experience with objective reality.
>That its existence is not objectively measurable doesn't mean it doesn't exist
If we can think of something that is not objectively measurable what suggests that it exists objectively as opposed to it being a subjective opinion?
Can you define consciousness without invoking subjective conscious experience? You agree there is not evidence of objective existence and yet you say it objectively exists because you subjectively feel it does. Is this not self-contradictory?
Are you claiming that subjective opinions do not exist, despite your own observations of your own subjective opinons?
Also, imagine you live in a box with a yellow ball. And you can speak to other people outside your box. They tell you they also live in a box with a yellow ball. You will never have proof that they actually have yellow balls in their boxes. And they will never have proof that you actually have a yellow ball in your box.
Would you say that yellow balls are merely a subjective opinion, and don't exist?
That does not mean its existence is realised or useful. Is it useful (consequential) and consistent that yellow balls exist? If yes, then they do. If no, then they don't.
No, I'm saying it need not be objectively measurable to be real. This is what I mean by empiricism being an incomplete philosophy.
>If we can think of something that is not objectively measurable what suggests that it exists objectively as opposed to it being a subjective opinion?
That you prefer chocolate ice cream isn't objective. But that you have a preference for chocolate ice cream is objective. The content of the conscious percept isn't necessarily real, but the fact that you are having what we call a 'conscious percept' certainly is real. Just because it is happening in your head, why should it not be real?
Actually as far as I understand we know that telepathy does not work, and even more so with psychokinesis. Did you read the book, can you point me to the scientific evidence of psychokinesis?
as a hacker, you should have little difficulty finding these and reviewing them.
unfortunately, i have not the time or motivation to be your personal research assistant.
To me it seems that materialism (or physicalism or any monism) inevitably leads to panpsychism. If there's only one kind of substance, it's either conscious or it's not, so everything has consciousness or nothing does. Panpsychists go with the former, probably because they think they are conscious, material beings.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/review/R2VIDRICPX3ROL/ref=cm_cr_srp_d...
why did you choose to post that particular review out of all the others? why not, for example, this one?
"Consider the possibly that classical physics is not only wrong but way wrong." "A wild ride through the data supporting psi. I was for many years a reductionist like Michael Shermer. However, after reading more and books like this, my mind has accepted the reality that we know very little about where we came from and what really drives our human..."
I'm skeptical of this claim in general, there's a lot of research that either isn't reliable, biased or gets twisted to support a claim. Then this i think becomes pop science, low quality sounds realistic to me kind of things. When you have to emphasize "based on science" my bs sensor goes off.
Idk if anyone else feels that way, I feel like have to approach a lot claims skeptically in fields I don't know enough about.
i found it not only convincing, but also to have practical applications which are not difficult to arrive at with a little thinking.
if you are a well-intentioned tinkerer and hacker not limiting yourself to digital devices with a manual, you may find it intriguing.
1. [Word A] means [Concept X] to most people.
2. [Concept X] doesn't apply to [Item K], but [Concept Y] does.
3. By creating a new definition, finding an obscure definition, or twisting a current definition I can argue that [Word A] technically can mean [Concept Y], and then apply the term to [Item K].
4. Now that I'm using [Word A] for [Item K], most people will associate [Item K] with [Concept X].
So when we say "consciousness," most people conjure up some concept about human like thought and communication. That's the reason why most people find the word compelling, and it obviously (almost by definition) doesn't apply to most of the stuff talked about in this article.
When coming across arguments that rely on this type of sleight of hand, I think it's best to ask yourself what the article would actually be saying if the loaded term was replaced by another term or phrase that makes it explicitly clear what the other means. So when the author of this article writes something like this:
> This is utterly frigid, hundreds of degrees colder than any temperature terrestrial organisms can survive. But the fact that the temperature is non-zero implies a corresponding tiny amount of heat in deep space. This of course implies a corresponding tiny amount of experience.
It seems that he's arguing that consciousness is experience and experience is any activity, even at the atomic level. So if we remove the sleight of hand and ask "Is there some level of activity, even sleight activity at the atomic level, everywhere?" The answer might be affirmative (if we're using a loose sense of the word "everywhere"), but it's not a particularly surprising or even interesting question to answer.
The existence of "real papers with math behind thest claims" is sort of irrelevant. IIT is being proposed as a scientific theory, and the author of TFA claims that IIT is testable, but he has not said anything about actual testing. I cannot judge the math, and I doubt that I could judge a scientific paper describing a test. I'm simply asking: Is there any actualy testing, completed or in progress? TFA did not make such a claim.
https://youtu.be/LGd8p-GSLgY?t=3512
This is a fairly old talk and if you do a bit more digging I think he has other talks with more experiments.