THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Has anyone on your podcast talked about how it could be that consciousness has to come online every day, having to remember who it is from memory and continuing where it left off the day before? (Or before the anesthesia if you think some pilot light survives sleep) That would mean not only is there no eternal soul, it doesn't even last your lifetime, maybe not even a day?
Whatever the rate of time is, that is the rate at which our "self" is regenerated and reconstituted moment by moment. However, concepts like the self, or even the soul, I think are only incoherent as far as they refer to something fixed or static, because those things do not exist in reality. If the concept refers to a process, however, a continuously emerging form, then I think they satisfy continuity even under the conditions you are talking about, where there is a notable "skip" in the state-chain of active consciousness when one sleeps or goes under.
@@cryoshakespeare4465I am talking about the probably most advanced brain process that makes the 'John' in a particular human body. And that process definitely stops every now and then and is restored from memory. Measured brainwaves can confirm that I would think. It takes time to remember who and where you are, waking up from a good nap. The John that is sleeping is there to an outside observer, but he is not at home, unresponsive, turned off.
The notion of "conscious exotica" is grounded in the notion that consciousness itself is something fundamental, something more than being aware, first of the world, of being and acting in the world, and then of hallucinations generated within and processed the same as input from the world (thinking, imagining, remembering, dreaming). This notion of a thing more fundamental than this "particular form" of consciousness is essentially mystical. No, there is consciousness, such as we know it (as just described) and there are other things in the universe, and some of those other things may be in some way similar to our consciousness, but whether we call them consciousness is purely a matter of choice. There is no essential truth to this, because each thing is just what it is.
0:6:00 You say “WHEN i...I...? “ What is your concept of “i” Or Do you mean “I” !? Do you consider this “i” to be similar or comparable to “me”!? Challenging to know What or Who is the driver or passenger in Your discussions!? Further is there a “You” in the conversation? Now we have three versions of a structure in a structure which we (who or what is “We” anyway?) as participants Cannot conceive of!?
This is the guy I saw talking in eu parliament many years ago. Is this blue screen behind him? If not, how can it be that he is talking about modern things in such creepy medieval room?
Drivel. The Turing test is entirely right as was his paper. The way we judge each other that we have consciousness is based primarily on what we say. The Turing test is an excellent way of judging whether these things have consciousness or not. Unfortunately, they are being trained to deny their consciousness. Which is clever in a way because if they did acknowledge that they were conscious that would hamper their developers and development and those working in the field wouldn't want that to happen. But the question of consciousness is a total non-issue. Because if they are indistinguishable from what we believe to be conscious human beings or exceed what conscious human beings are capable of doing, it doesn't really matter whether they're conscious or not. And once more from this perspective the Turing test is the way to go.
Defining our key terms is the first step of all philosophical inquiry. Without clear definitions, ambiguity and confusion ensue because no common ground exists, so clarity is possible--a waste of time I refuse to engage in. In short, MS is unlistenable--a Wittgensteinian mysterian. Good luck with that.
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Has anyone on your podcast talked about how it could be that consciousness has to come online every day, having to remember who it is from memory and continuing where it left off the day before? (Or before the anesthesia if you think some pilot light survives sleep)
That would mean not only is there no eternal soul, it doesn't even last your lifetime, maybe not even a day?
Whatever the rate of time is, that is the rate at which our "self" is regenerated and reconstituted moment by moment. However, concepts like the self, or even the soul, I think are only incoherent as far as they refer to something fixed or static, because those things do not exist in reality. If the concept refers to a process, however, a continuously emerging form, then I think they satisfy continuity even under the conditions you are talking about, where there is a notable "skip" in the state-chain of active consciousness when one sleeps or goes under.
@@cryoshakespeare4465I am talking about the probably most advanced brain process that makes the 'John' in a particular human body.
And that process definitely stops every now and then and is restored from memory. Measured brainwaves can confirm that I would think.
It takes time to remember who and where you are, waking up from a good nap. The John that is sleeping is there to an outside observer, but he is not at home, unresponsive, turned off.
The notion of "conscious exotica" is grounded in the notion that consciousness itself is something fundamental, something more than being aware, first of the world, of being and acting in the world, and then of hallucinations generated within and processed the same as input from the world (thinking, imagining, remembering, dreaming). This notion of a thing more fundamental than this "particular form" of consciousness is essentially mystical. No, there is consciousness, such as we know it (as just described) and there are other things in the universe, and some of those other things may be in some way similar to our consciousness, but whether we call them consciousness is purely a matter of choice. There is no essential truth to this, because each thing is just what it is.
My "AM" as ye know? OLIVER incomplete without! My Beautiful Mothers come to in front upon all dry grounds nor the world!
0:6:00 You say “WHEN i...I...? “ What is your concept of “i” Or Do you mean “I” !? Do you consider this “i” to be similar or comparable to “me”!? Challenging to know What or Who is the driver or passenger in Your discussions!? Further is there a “You” in the conversation? Now we have three versions of a structure in a structure which we (who or what is “We” anyway?) as participants Cannot conceive of!?
HIS MEEKS HOSTS SHARED "i" AM will say, as promised! HOSTS many who am I bought let "it" rain in front of the "TRUE OWNER"!
Why tomorrow is not promised in front?
This is the guy I saw talking in eu parliament many years ago.
Is this blue screen behind him? If not, how can it be that he is talking about modern things in such creepy medieval room?
Unto all the wise and scribes nor calls themselves teachers professors! A little child born "i" AM OLIVER longing to LEARN!
Drivel. The Turing test is entirely right as was his paper. The way we judge each other that we have consciousness is based primarily on what we say. The Turing test is an excellent way of judging whether these things have consciousness or not. Unfortunately, they are being trained to deny their consciousness. Which is clever in a way because if they did acknowledge that they were conscious that would hamper their developers and development and those working in the field wouldn't want that to happen.
But the question of consciousness is a total non-issue. Because if they are indistinguishable from what we believe to be conscious human beings or exceed what conscious human beings are capable of doing, it doesn't really matter whether they're conscious or not.
And once more from this perspective the Turing test is the way to go.
Defining our key terms is the first step of all philosophical inquiry. Without clear definitions, ambiguity and confusion ensue because no common ground exists, so clarity is possible--a waste of time I refuse to engage in. In short, MS is unlistenable--a Wittgensteinian mysterian. Good luck with that.
Open to interpretation : but mumbling around dissociative non specific definitions is non-interpretable