> On 18 May 2019, at 10:12, Philip Thrift <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Consciousness monism is incoherent if one maintains that there is an > objective reality at all. > > If one rejects objective reality (a reality independent of oneself, or any > self-aware conscious entity) then all bets are off. > > But I guess there are "AI fanboys" (as I understand what you mean) who seem > to dismiss consciousness, or have the delusion that it is just "information > processing", or "patterns" of neural activity. > > Even the latest neurobiology on how the brain processes taste identifies the > critical tole of the neurobiochemical SATB2 - "a 733 amino-acid > homeodomain-containing human protein with a molecular weight of 82.5 kDa > encoded by the SATB2 gene on 2q33." I.e. it's complicated. > > But how much "unity" consciousness is is an open question: > > > https://www.academia.edu/34679385/PANPSYCHISM_IN_THE_FIRST_PERSON > by Michel Bitbol > > A central presupposition of science is that objectivity is universal.
By definition, objectivity is universal. We just do not know for sure what is that objective reality. Assuming mechanism, arithmetic is more than enough (the sigma_1 reality is enough, for the objective part, but the whole of mathematics is not enough for the phenomenological part). > This does not only create a blindspot in knowledge, but also forces one to > ignore it. That is weird. That eventually explain that there will be a sort of blindspot, but that means that we have to take it into account to guess the “objective reality”. Bruno > Several strategies were accordingly adopted to overcome this ignorance, along > with the standard divide between continental and analytic philosophy. One of > them is Phenomenology, with its project of stripping the layers of > interpretation by way of a complete suspension of judgment (epochè), and > evaluating any claim of knowledge from such a basis of “pure consciousness”. > Another one is pan-experientialist metaphysics, that puts back pure > experience in the very domain that was deprived of it by the act of > objectification. I compare these two approaches, thereby establishing a > hierarchy of radicality between avoiding the blindspot from the outset and > compensating for it retrospectively. > > @philipthrift > > On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:25:30 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > Are AI fanboys aware of the fact that consciousness is a unity ? For example, > hearing something and seeing something don't happen in 2 independent > consciousnesses, but happen in only 1 consciousness. Also, split brain > patients show 2 different consciousness, for example one being theist, the > other atheist, and so on. If AI is to be conscious, then what will decide the > unification of different "information processings" ? If for example that AI > has 2 modules: one that "process" sounds and one that "process" images, how > do you know if there are 2 conscious AIs there or only 1 ? > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2c931ccb-098f-40c8-9fdc-66d0e6e339b5%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2c931ccb-098f-40c8-9fdc-66d0e6e339b5%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0D04201D-2E27-4229-A001-DDCFC6E2ABB5%40ulb.ac.be.
