Antinatalism Believes in Consciousness!

it has to, because consciousness is the thing that feels suffering, and makes suffering "real" and "objective" so... it must be real and objective.

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[ABitOfTheUniverse]

9:06 Just the basic electric and chemical 'experiences' that are necessary to maintain your life support systems. Your brain is sending electricity to your lungs and your heart to keep your respiratory and circulatory systems going. Your brain occasionally 'wakes up' and processes information accumulated through your senses, like experiences (such a vague word), thoughts, senses, etc.. While it/you try to make sense of the world. Sometimes the process invokes dreams and your muscles twitch. w/e

[pyrrho314]

: that wasn't the question, I think you misunderstand. The question is how many experiences to people have in common, like, drinking tea, a lot of people have that experience in common... would any of them deny tea exists? EVERYONE has this first person experience, it seems to me, though I'm begining to wonder.

[ABitOfTheUniverse]

08:30 Because it's beneficial to your survival.

[pyrrho314]

: that's not a very good reason... does a river have this, why not? does it not have a "survival" to worry about... why do you have one? Does a fire have one, to help it burn longer. Your answer is beyond unhelpful.

[masluxx]

@pyrrho314 one has to be careful for the human brain likes to; anthropomorphize, to project and it also has problems with ‘correlation and causation’. The Turing test is important, not for what conclusions can be made about an machine or consciousness, but about how the mind is prone to error (or skip steps in good and bad ways). Emotions being like a shorthand fast processing script so the brain does not have to process all the data it has to react. The Turing test exposes this scripting

[trick0171]

Interpret may have been the wrong word (though I would suggest it is not necessarily an "observer" word). Parse may be a better word. Anything that analyzes input to determine an output that internally describes the input. Experience may just be a way it describes the input internally.

[pyrrho314]

: what interpret it? What does interpretation mean? Do you not see that term involves the observer?

[trick0171]

I think internal "experience" (ie. redness) is just one different level of interpretation, just like recognizing X as red based on a color table is a level of interpretation higher than not holding such a table and recognition software. It is all in the config of the software and hardware - we just have not figured out the config for "our type" of internal experience yet.

(end 2)

[trick0171]

I don't think the 'substance' itself is anything special, only that the configuration of the substance is specific and complex. This is why I think we will be able to replicate it within different "hardware" if you will. It is the configuration and processing speed through that configuration that I think important, regardless if in a brain, or a harddrive/processor.

(more 1)

[pyrrho314]

: that's the fucking question I want to look into with physics. 

[pyrrho314]

no