It’s possible that you’re not conscious. So your subjective view may be correct for you. To those who are conscious, this argument doesn’t really matter, and the proof is simply in the pudding.
If we accept subjective feeling as definitive proof that something exists, that opens a Pandora’s box of entities. People have deeply held subjective beliefs about things like God, afterlife experiences, out-of-body experiences, and many others. It seems unfair to me to dismiss this kind of subjective evidence in these cases, while accepting it without question for experience of consciousness.
It’s a subjective experience argument. As a conscious person, if someone tells me they don’t believe in consciousness, then I’m inclined to believe they have a reason for saying that. They must not be experiencing consciousness the same way I am.
Interestingly, a non-trivial number of people have no internal monologue (https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue...). It would be reasonable to assume the experiential side of consciousness is on a spectrum, with extreme edge cases on both ends. It’s not unreasonable to assume that some people are barely experiencing it, and some not at all. It would certainly explain to me (someone who experiences it quite intensely) why some would claim it doesn’t exist. Because for them, it might not.
"Earth is flat" is an objective statement. "I experience consciousness" is subjective, similarly to "I am experiencing pain". If someone tells me "pain doesn't exist" while I know it exists (because I have experienced it), I can be certain that that person is wrong. Even though I can't prove it to him.
I've been thinking the same (that people who claim it doesn't exist don't have it) but it had never occurred to me that it might be on a spectrum. It actually makes perfect sense.
No conscious person can know if another person is conscious. There is no 'sensation' of experiencing another conscious. Given how many people can and have been fooled by AI, this lack of ability to sense another consciousness is clear.
It's a fair point, though. If one rejects a subjective experience without any doubt, the most plausible explanation is that they don't have that subjective experience.
If I tell you that I see numbers as colours, and you say "that's not possible", I would assume that you don't have synesthesia [1]. I wouldn't doubt the fact that I have it [2].
Similarly, if some people argue that consciousness is not something like I describe, I would naturally assume that they don't experience it the same way as I do.
It’s a little more complicated than that, because ultimately I control whether you see that I viewed your profile or not, even if you’re a Premium member. If I don’t want other users to see that I viewed their profile, then I don’t get to see who viewed my profile. It’s a setting.
It would have to be, if they were to try and take this argument further. But ultimately the question of who the data is concerning/belongs to is more complex than the article lets on because there are two users involved in the scenario that generated the data.
Sure. Poor people ruin millions of families every year with pointless violent robberies, sexual assaults in back alleys, and worse.
Does anyone of sound mind make it a class issue? Of course not. It would make about as much sense as blaming every rich person for random white collar crimes.
Anyone who argues it is a class issue is not of sound mind?
Those who disagree with you are crazy.
Right.
Says one vain but ultimately useless meat suit whose food and shelter the rest of us don't have to concern ourselves with because it's so inconsequential an existence it props nothing important up.
Ah it's people like you that provide the most entertainment in life. Watching you shill delusions about your economic achievements in a physical reality that doesn't care you exist and a social system that provides no assurances your efforts today will afford you food and shelter in the future.
As the other 8 billion on the planet while you live don't notice you exist.
But you're of sound mind; a privilege you give yourself to begin with. Lol. Sad.
What’s your contention? If the per capita incidences of either rich or poor people ruining families is a worse number, then what’s the implication?
That whatever group has a worse impact should be “gotten rid of”? What if poor people are worse? You’d abandon that line of thinking entirely, I imagine.
What’s next? If people with red cars are statistically more likely to commit crimes we should round them up as long as you don’t personally have a red car?
Is it? It's kind of the heart of the matter - just because something is common doesn't mean it's acceptable. The difference is that in our society we've all agreed the sacrificing is no longer acceptable.
arrow keys also seem to work fine but you have to click-to-focus first.
reply