I think your instinct to define consciousness the way you have is probably quite useful for this discussion. Re prior tweet, consciousness kicks in to confront the total chaos of raw experience, and aggregate it into a abstractions, honing awareness, teaching us what to see
-
-
That dimension of this process which has to process and aggregate information seems in principle to not require "felt awareness", which is what I've been calling consciousness - confusing perhaps
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But the process of felt awareness *is* consciousness. The bit of us that processes things, puts them together in a coherent way - that *is* the self-aware part. We need to know how our mind is working now to figure out how to get our minds to work in new ways.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @imhinesmi @cognazor
We'll be using your definition of consciousness moving forward (to be clear) My sense is the same as yours, they are interconnected, but philosophically I argue that they are separate. Felt awareness/qualia is a side effect of our consciousness. 1/2
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
"Consciousness" as you've described strikes me as adaptive. "Felt awareness" seems like a happy (if you're happy) accident The thought experiment that
@cognazor shared was my attempt at proferring a scenario where the _felt_ awareness part gets removed by surgery, a qualiaectomy3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I see felt awareness as the mechanism by which consciousness does its thing, not a side effect. Removing felt awareness removes the ability to self-modify, resulting in a person who can't change.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @imhinesmi @cognazor
"felt" is a modifier to describe our circumstance. What about "silent awareness"? (in other words, removing qualia removes the word "felt" from the front) btw guys will be going offline for some time but have really enjoyed this.. 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
You seem to be describing nothing at that point, though. What are qualia even made of, if not experiences or awareness? This was a good talk, I had fun too.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @imhinesmi @cognazor
We're still not on the same page
. I'm talking about the most important thing, the thing that derives all value/meaning, I call it consciousness, a subset - the experiential dimension - of what you call consciousness.2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
The experiential dimension isn't orthogonal to the other ones though! The thing that derives value and meaning does it based on what the rest of us sees, feels, and so forth. You're trying to carve out a piece of reality, but it doesn't exist.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
What you're trying to do seems to me like separating out the wet bit of water.
-
-
Replying to @imhinesmi @cognazor
Perhaps this is true, both philosophically and wrt our actual physical reality. It doesn't quite make sense to me, but this is sort of passed the event horizon of my reasoning ability. 1/..
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The crux of my thinking is that emotion/pain/thought etc are at bottom just carrying information. They're like these galaxy brain approximations of something very complex. Behavioural nudges.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 6 more replies
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.