What makes discussions with people who are convinced that there can be no rational explanation for consciousness so difficult is that they mostly won’t be prepared to argue the question via rational explanations
-
To be clear, I don't endorse the antenna analogy (though I don't think it can be definitely discarded either). I have much mundane views of consciousness, as being generated by the brain. I shared the analogy because it was interesting, thought-provoking, not because I believe it
I see this idea as akin to the simulation hypothesis: fun, interesting, very implausible, but ultimately impossible to disprove.
-
-
William James and Aldous Huxley both proposed the reducing valve / antennae framework of consciousness not because it sounded fun & interesting, though it did, but because it better opened an explanatory path for the phenomenology of altered states of consciousness...
-
The problem with armchair consciousness studies by the AI & “rationality” crowd is that they are taking their one dominant mode of analytical/logical operation as the only one available and colonizing the rest of reality.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I just like the fact that an independent but highly connected cell, selectively adding signal to a local stimulus, creates a substrate upon which an entirely new dimension emerges. One that it participates in but seemingly isn’t capable of perceiving or directionally influencing.
-
It’s likes all the way down.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.