Fear of death.

i think the really fundamental characteristics of consciousness would hold for me as much if i were a leech as they do now as a human!

i agree.

consciousness is subjective, private, phenomenal. nothing else in biology or any other science is like that.

― Autumnal the faun (ledge), Friday, September 28, 2012 6:33 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This strikes me as being not correct. Time is pretty subjective! We can make clocks run more slowly just by putting them on airplanes!

so how does this all apply to horse_ebooks

xp different usage of subjective i daresay. clocks don't experience anything.

Does a leech have an afterlife?

xp well now you're question-begging.

Merdeyeux you're saying that we're a complicated organism so our consciousness is more complex, though not functioning differently than the varying degrees found elsewhere in biological life?
I don't know if you saw my supercomputer scenario I presented that touches on the same point. If it is advanced enough to cross the line into arguably being conscious, is it not still a computer that that consciousness is tethered to only when it is operating?

Granny thanks for explaining everything much clearer than I suspect I have this whole time.

xxp what question? how? maybe clocks have experience? yeah ok but not according to science.

If i've learned one thing it's that getting across the precise nature of what it is about consciousness that is left unexplained by science to someone who doesn't share the intuition is remarkably difficult. If I say "subjective" you bring up clocks, although that just seems like a standard physical phenomenon to me - if I turn up the gas on my cooker the pan gets hotter, is that subjective? If I say "inaccessible" you would talk about brain scans etc. Maybe "phenomenal" captures it best. Science doesn't explain the "what it is like" aspect of consciousness.

Maybe though you're disproportionately valuing it because you personally experience it.

consciousness is subjective, private, phenomenal. nothing else in biology or any other science is like that.

Even if this is true, why does that mean it operates according to different rules? It's hard to pin down, hard to measure, different from all other natural phenomena...so it must be different in virtually every way from everything else? Why? For any phenomenon that is unique in one respect, can we assume it is unique in any other respect without evidence?

i only assume it's unique in those respects in which it seems unique. and many things in science operate according to different rules (electrons behave differently from quarks which behave differently from planets which behave differently from populations).

Maybe since it is unique in those respects, it shouldn't even be viewed as a distinct natural phenomenon. Rather than rewrite the rules just for it so it fits amongst the other members of a category, maybe it shouldn't be considered as within that category.
Also, it isn't as if in 1746, someone discovered the phenomenon of consciousness, and after testing it discovered it was subjective, making it unique. It's a term created specifically TO describe the subjective. It can't be measured BECAUSE it is subjective. It doesn't exist in objective reality, but is an effect produced by a ridiculously complex set of biological structured and reactions that is only observable by the organism that is housing those structures and reactions.

I would agree with most of the second para! But I'm still all for rewriting the rules. What is it if it's not a natural phenomenon?

The color red doesn't objectively exist either. It's a subjective experience, the effect produced by a certain wavelength of life interacting with a person's biology. An organism's way of interpreting information that exists outside of itself.

yup. but it's a phenomenon, it's natural, it exists.

No, those wavelengths exist. The color red does not. How can it if other organisms don't even experience it? Hell, color blind people don't even!

this is the hardcore dennett stance i guess. i don't get it.

well otherwise you'd have to say that humans way of experiencing external stimuli is the one correct one. spiders, bats, those dudes got it all wrong. right?

nope. we're just talking about existence, where does correctness come into it?

Sorry to veer away from the topic at hand... I thought this was interesting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lF-uMIfL6s

He argues that we shouldn't be afraid of death. The argument is,

1. We should be afraid of something (we have reason to be afraid of something) just in case (a) the thing is bad, (b) there's a non-negligible chance of it happening, and (c) there's some uncertainty about whether it will happen or how bad it will be.

2. Death is certain, and although we can be uncertain about how bad or painful the way in which we die may be, there's no uncertainty about how bad being dead will be (it won't be like anything.)

3. So, we shouldn't fear being dead.

I guess 1.c is the most tenuous condition here. He makes a case that this is how we ordinarily understand fear. We consider it inappropriate if someone expresses fear (as opposed to anger or sadness) about something that she knows will happen and knows how bad it will be.

Maybe the problem is that "fear" suggests too weak an emotional response, something like worry. Maybe the sort of fear that we sometimes feel concerning death is more like horror. I don't have any intuitions about whether horror is inappropriate towards something that I know is inevitable.

where does correctness come into it?

In thinking that "red" is natural, that it exists. We get tricked into thinking it does. It's the only way we experience those light waves, so that must be how it objectively exists. I'm color blind for certain colors. I'm pretty sure I perceive those colors differently. Now, I still do perceive those wavelengths. I don't see a blackness where they should be. The phenomenon of red doesn't exist out there, just within the brain.

Does heat exist? Do all organisms experience it in the same way? Particles moving at slower or faster rates, energy being transferred, that exists. Heat is a subjective experience of that.

The phenomenon of red doesn't exist out there, just within the brain.

yeah, but it exists.

Does heat exist? Do all organisms experience it in the same way?

like the old "hey man what if we all experience colours differently?" - what if we do? there's no right or wrong involved. doesn't mean our experience don't exist.

It exists as a subjective experience, sure. Does the subjective experience of red break any known physical laws? Why would consciousness, also a subjective experience (albeit a sort of meta experience; the experience of experiencing) be any different?

I'm saying the physical laws we have or can envisage are insufficient to explain consciousness - or indeed the mere perception of red. does that mean it breaks physical laws? hmm i suppose on one reading it does, not really what i'm aiming for though.

doesn't mean our experience don't exist.

it means they don't exist outside of ourselves. just like photosynthesis doesn't exist outside of a plants' cells. what does a plant experience when it photosynthesizes? unknowable, but no reason to think its experience of it is "special" with respect to the laws of physics.

Does the subjective experience of red break any known physical laws?

Not sure this is a answerable question.

I really think you are apples vs. oranges with this whole consciousness & the laws of physics angle. It really doesn't make any sense.

Please explain how the experience of red follows physical laws and it'll make a little more sense to me.

Is there any reason to suspect it does? Does a thermometer responding to the temperature break physical laws? Why would a brain responding to certain wavelengths? Is it magical simply because we don't understand it fully, and may never?

Hey you brought it up

Merdeyeux you're saying that we're a complicated organism so our consciousness is more complex, though not functioning differently than the varying degrees found elsewhere in biological life?
I don't know if you saw my supercomputer scenario I presented that touches on the same point. If it is advanced enough to cross the line into arguably being conscious, is it not still a computer that that consciousness is tethered to only when it is operating?

― Evan, Friday, September 28, 2012 1:28 PM (2 hours ago)

yeah, i agree here. in terms of analysing them i think there's something ~notable~ about the distinction between self-organising biological consciousness and externally-induced electronic consciousness, but i'm not really sure what.

organisms respond to external stimuli, and organize it in order to function and reproduce in their environment. experience of red springs from that. '
what doesn't make sense to me is labeling a particular subjective experience (or set of experiences) as "consciousness" and then arbitrarily imbuing it with a magical properties.

So everything in the universe is obeys the laws of physics. Except for consciousness. Why? Because it's special. Why is it special? Because it is.

Because it special to us, in such a way that we can't accept it just ends.

If the only argument for it's specialness is "you never know...you can't prove otherwise", that is literally the weakest argument possible while still remaining with the realm of logic.

So how much does this consciousness weigh?

why do i keep doing it's for its jeez

how much does love weigh? how much does hope? how much does resentment? how much does the color red?

Your arguing for the specialness of the human experience is really no stronger an argument. Why is birth-to-death perception the only meaningful existence?

You know what Granny I'm OK with arbitrarily imbuing magical properties to consciousness as a what-if, because existential what-ifs are interesting, but I'm not OK with equating its possibility with the scientifically inferred outcome.

There's nothing special about human experience, that's the whole point. Consciousness is defined by "birth-to-death" perception/existence. If you believe in other forms of existence, you're going to have to find a new term for the perception of it.

Magical magical magical magical magical magical science science science science science

sigh

I'm sorry.

What would be sufficient proof that consciousness wasn't special, and obeys physical laws? If I show you fMRI or CAT scans of electrical activity in the brain, and how it correlates with certain thought patterns, ways of perceiving stimuli, levels of attention, etc., you can always just say "nah I'm not convinced, it *feels* like there's something more to it than that". Well, okay *shrugs*.

I can't abide with the notion that an argument that insists that a concept that occurs within the universe must abide by the laws of the universe is no stronger of an argument than one that contends that a concept is unique and breaks physical laws merely because it *feels* special and you can't measure it.

Where did anyone say it breaks physical laws?

Conservation of energy is a physical law.