Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I keep wondering if maybe the definition most people are using for "consciousness" just doesn't match mine

I think this is true, when we talk about consciousness we talk about it as if consciousness has the ability to control the body and speak and that our thoughts are controlled by our consciousness. I think illusionist arguments are very strong here against that. We can change how someone thinks or acts based off of physical stuff (like lead poisoning someone) therefore those things must mostly be physical.

I have come to the conclusion that conciseness probably is only an experiential thing. It might not be able to control anything but there is something fundamental there experiencing something. We cant know that the world is real: we could a brain in a jar, or in the matrix, or on a massive DMT trip right now. But we can know "I think therefore I am", probably better written I experience therefore I am. It seems very strange to throw out the one thing we know to be true, that we are having a conscious experience, in favour of something we don't know to be true, that the world is real and causing that experience.



> I have come to the conclusion that conciseness probably is only an experiential thing. It might not be able to control anything [..]

Doesn't it cause us to at least have these kinds of conversations?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: