Fair, but that still seems to me like you bend the word "I" to fit — mentos987

Indeed I do. I am mostly replying to the arguments that state only "thoughts exist". By equating the thought "I think therefore I am" with "I", I am showing them that if thoughts exist, something else exists too besides just that thought. It is as fair to equate that something else with my personal identity as it is to equate my body with my personal identity.

I do not think this is happening correctly with "I think, therefore I am". — mentos987

Well I did use Google translate on an already confusing text. I will rework it eventually.

And I do not think that the general population defines "I" like you do, thus leaving room for misunderstanding. — mentos987

I don't think the general population even thinks at all, especially in the English speaking world.

And I do not think that the general population defines "I" like you do, thus leaving room for misunderstanding. — mentos987

I don't think the general population even thinks at all, especially in the English speaking world. — Lionino

Well, if you ever want to communicate with the general population it would be easier to use words as they define them rather than having to preface your statements with your own definition of words.

You're asking the wrong person because I have the same question; I don't think consciousness is an illusion.

instead we experience some emergent phenomena of "being" — Christoffer

The illusion is our experience of ourselves to be more advanced than what we really are. We don't see the strings that pulls our behavior, wants, needs, thoughts and actions, we only experience the sum of those strings and it makes us feel like we are in control and have agency — Christoffer

The strings are our emotions - the predictive system; you're saying that's what controls our actions.

But then I'm confused when you say:

And so our new layer of predictions analyzed our own emotional behavior and started to mitigate them when needed. — Christoffer

The predictive system can study itself?

The predictive system can study itself? — NotAristotle

Why not?

I guess I'm unclear on how the mechanics of a self-referential system would work.

It is as if we were saying our emotions analyzed our emotions, no?

It is as if we were saying our emotions analyzed our emotions, no? — NotAristotle

I'd put it as... Our cognitive faculties can recognize and logically consider our emotional reactions. No, I wouldn't say our emotions can analyze our emotions, but I don't know what it would mean for emotions to analyze something.

You're asking the wrong person because I have the same question; I don't think consciousness is an illusion. — NotAristotle

I know, but it seems that from your perspective denial of the reality of consciousness leads to illusionism. Did I at least get that right?

I'm not really committed to any kind of illusionism, but if consciousness is not a reality (and I think it is), then I guess we could think of it as a kind of illusion, sure.

anytime a "ball of energy", supposedly a consciousness, passed from one subject to another, it would find itself completely disoriented, being in a completely different frame of reference, sort of like if you went to sleep in Tokyo and woke up in London, except much more extreme. — Metaphysician Undercover

First of all, thank you for reading and actually replying to my thread, unlike most of the replies here.
Replying to your comment, the "ball of energy" would not be disoriented because it would only carry the energy to "light up" some neural network, to give rise to this "conscious experience". It wouldn't carry the content of the thoughts. It could be like electricity: if you change the charger of your computer, or the battery, the data and programs in the computer stay the same.
If you imagine that "you" are the ball of energy, like a battery, like the electrons travelling throughout the electronics of the computer. If you are taken to a unit that says "You are individual and have been living in his body since 50 years", you can't "think" anything else because these units define your trajectory. And if the battery is taken to another computer, it won't "notice" anything.

This would produce all sorts of irreconcilable confusion for the consciousness because it would not be able to distinguish forces of change coming from the inside, from forces coming from the outside, leaving it incapable of intentional activity. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we didn't have the notion of individual, this would indeed happen. But if the notion of individual is simply a structure that the ball of energy "reads", this wouldn't happen.

But this is just a thought experiment to challenge this notion of "individual" and show that it could be separated from consciousness. It's to emphasize that this sense of individual could just be a concept in our brain, just like time, numbers,... From the point of view of the thought experiment, there's no reason to think that whenever there's a flow of electron through a circuit, there must be a specific electronic circuit coding for the concept of individual. For living beings, it makes a lot of sense to have this notion and it's hard to imagine that a living being would function without it, but that doesn't make it part of the flow of energy, it doesn't make it necessary for the "conscious experience", they're independent.

the question of qualia and our subjective experience as a consciousness is another discussion that fits this thread better. — Christoffer

However this is not a generic thread about qualia and our subjective experience as a consciousness, this is, as the title suggests, a thread about challenging our intuitions of consciousness. How is anything that you wrote a reply to my thread? It seems like you are just expressing your opinion about consciousness.

[

Replying to your comment, the "ball of energy" would not be disoriented because it would only carry the energy to "light up" some neural network, to give rise to this "conscious experience". It wouldn't carry the content of the thoughts. It could be like electricity: if you change the charger of your computer, or the battery, the data and programs in the computer stay the same. — Skalidris

Well I don't see the point then. Consciousness is defined by the thinking activity of the being. If each person continues to have one's own individual thoughts, then you do not avoid the individual nature of consciousness in this way. Having a different ball of energy which charges up the consciousness everyday, does not take away from the individuality of the consciousness. In fact, that is what is the case already, we eat different food every day, constituting a different ball of energy to charge up the consciousness.

If we didn't have the notion of individual, this would indeed happen. But if the notion of individual is simply a structure that the ball of energy "reads", this wouldn't happen. — Skalidris

It's not just the notion of individual which matters here, but the fact that each person has distinct and unique thoughts. Having distinct and unique thoughts is what produces the idea of individuality. The supposed "I" which reads these thoughts is already the same for everyone. "I am a human being". When we separated the I from the thoughts, it's called abstraction, and we come up with something general rather than the particular. But that's not how we conceive of an individual, as having a a separate "I", the "I" being something general. The "I" is the complete package of the individual. So you propose a separation of the "I", but it's unrealistic.

But this is just a thought experiment to challenge this notion of "individual" and show that it could be separated from consciousness. It's to emphasize that this sense of individual could just be a concept in our brain, just like time, numbers,... From the point of view of the thought experiment, there's no reason to think that whenever there's a flow of electron through a circuit, there must be a specific electronic circuit coding for the concept of individual. For living beings, it makes a lot of sense to have this notion and it's hard to imagine that a living being would function without it, but that doesn't make it part of the flow of energy, it doesn't make it necessary for the "conscious experience", they're independent. — Skalidris

What's the point then? You propose a thought experiment to show that we could conceive of things as being otherwise, but the otherwise which you propose is unrealistic. Sure, the notion of "individual" is just a concept in one's brain, but we want the true concept, not a fictitious one. To propose a fictitious one is to say that things could be otherwise, but since the notion of individual is the true concept what purpose does the fictitious one serve?

The strings are our emotions - the predictive system; you're saying that's what controls our actions. — NotAristotle

It's more complex than that. What we feel as emotions are the strings of intuition and instincts. Emotions are part of evolution training us. Pain over the course of many generations of mutations can produce a behavior or physical restructure to mitigate it. The same goes for pleasure.

But the "strings" in our psychology have become more than just emotions. The construct of meaning could be linked to the pleasure of fulfillment, a grand form of it pushing us towards such reasoning. However, we form ideas about meaning that transcend mere emotional realms but they're still driven by predictive drives. The idea of forming something that generates meaning for grandchildren who would never even think about you can be a sense of prediction for projected survivability. That it's not just direct emotional self-programming that guides us, but that the predictions of navigating reality has become so temporally complex that it forms a higher complex awareness in which our sense of self and individuality is entangled in this web of strings pulling within us. It's such a complex web of different drives that it produces an illusion of ourselves being in control and have agency, but that its essentially a malleable highly advanced prediction machine that's constantly trying to make split-second adjustments to its predictions about everything.

If you were to ask yourself "why?" on every action you make, every minute detail of your behavior, and if the answer is vague continue with another "why?", where does it lead you? Doing so honestly rarely leads anywhere but down into extremely simple forms of basic necessities, emotional or as a plan of action, large or small. Even if the action, behavior or thought seemed complex and cognitively advanced, the reasons are usually simple. The complexity of this system hides the cogs of it so that we attribute more profound meaning to is than it actually has.

The predictive system can study itself? — NotAristotle

The predictive system has to do with adaptability. A constant stream of sensory and emotional "data" helps to form better predictions. This is basic cognition on most animals, but we evolved the ability to create categories of data in order to predict events and plan. The emotion in relation to other information does not equal only repeatable actions as in other animals, but will always be contextualized in a constantly adaptable system of prediction. We are constantly able to change our behaviors according to our adaptable system, which leads to us having a more dynamic agency and behavior not bound to repetition in the same way as other animals.

However this is not a generic thread about qualia and our subjective experience as a consciousness, this is, as the title suggests, a thread about challenging our intuitions of consciousness. How is anything that you wrote a reply to my thread? It seems like you are just expressing your opinion about consciousness. — Skalidris

It is a reply in that it focuses on the formation of consciousness, or rather the formation of qualia and individuality. That's a dimension that needs to be included if we are to break down our intuitions of consciousness. Much of your first post does not adhere to the things we actually know about our brain and consciousness in general, which means you form reasoning out of something other than common knowledge. Deconstruction of something requires the common construct first.

It's also unclear what you are actually arguing for. You ask what we think about your reasoning, but there's no clear conclusion you make. It reads more as a speculative meditation on the subject than deconstruction down to a conclusion.

And if you lift the idea of individual thought or the sense of us within ourselves; the problem with qualia; then I did give a perspective on it. The possible why of what's producing this sense of agency, self-awareness and individuality.

So I'm not sure in what way it doesn't relate because you opened up a discussion on the subject but did not provide a truly clear point or conclusion.

Having distinct and unique thoughts is what produces the idea of individuality. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how the unique part makes sense. If we were to clone two human beings, they wouldn't feel like two different persons anymore because their thoughts wouldn't be unique anymore?

But that's not how we conceive of an individual, as having a a separate "I", the "I" being something general. The "I" is the complete package of the individual. So you propose a separation of the "I", but it's unrealistic. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which "I" are you referring to? The notion we have when we are completely awake and conscious? The cloudy version of "I" we sometimes have in dreams? What about people with mental illness, their notion of "I" is completely different, imagine people with split personality, or people with schizophrenia who hear voices. Which "I" are they? I don't think you realize how complex this "I" is, we feel like ourselves when we can access our memory, our feelings, things that we normally access to when we're conscious and awake. I mentioned waking up from fainting in my thread, and the first images and sounds were really different from reality, yet I didn't experience any feelings of weirdness or fear. If I had the same notion of "I" as I do when I'm conscious, I would have felt disoriented and scared.

To go back to the thought experiment, imagine we make a computer with the notion of "I", that would be vaguely aware of its components etc, like we do. Do you think that would trigger consciousness, that the computer would experience something as soon as the notion of individual is coded? I don't see why this would happen, what relates this notion to the fact that experiences "light up"?

To propose a fictitious one is to say that things could be otherwise, but since the notion of individual is the true concept what purpose does the fictitious one serve? — Metaphysician Undercover

What do you mean it is the true concept? Again, which "I" is the true concept? And it's not about being true or not, it's about assessing its relation to consciousness. How do we know that the notion of "I" is related to consciousness? Why would that be the best theory? It's the most intuitive one, for sure, hence my topic: "deconstructing our intuitions". If we choose not to trust our intuitions, what rational arguments do we have to say that consciousness is always related to this "I" notion?

It is a reply in that it focuses on the formation of consciousness, or rather the formation of qualia and individuality. That's a dimension that needs to be included if we are to break down our intuitions of consciousness. — Christoffer

It would be needed if I were deconstructing a theory about the formation of consciousness, which I am not. I'm focusing on what consciousness actually is, about explicitly trying to grasp our intuitions about what it is. And you're discussing the how and why, which doesn't make sense in this thread since we didn't even elaborate what it actually is. How can we talk about why and how something was made if we didn't clarify what we're talking about?
Consciousness is an intuitive notion, not a scientific one (it wasn't created by sciences).

You ask what we think about your reasoning, but there's no clear conclusion you make. It reads more as a speculative meditation on the subject than deconstruction down to a conclusion. — Christoffer

The first conclusion is that there are no rational reasons to believe that consciousness always come with the notion of individual. And that therefore, they should be treated as two different matters. The second derives from the first one: there could be several neural networks experiencing consciousness in our brain.

I'm focusing on what consciousness actually is, about explicitly trying to grasp our intuitions about what it is. And you're discussing the how and why, which doesn't make sense in this thread since we didn't even elaborate what it actually is. How can we talk about why and how something was made if we didn't clarify what we're talking about? — Skalidris

How can you make a distinct difference between formation and what it is? The formation hints at what it is and how it is for us comes out of how it was formed. How can you clarify what it is without understanding how it was formed? And I'm not talking about the physical formation in the physicalist sense, but instead in terms of our psychology, how it formed into the experience we have. That is what this is about. To elaborate on the formation, our internal perspective of the process of its formation, is to speak of "what it is".

So I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that you focus on what consciousness "actually is". To "grasp our intuitions about what it is"? Are you talking about a religious perspective? Supernatural? Because if you're focusing on those things, without it being supernatural or religious, then what I added is clearly within the focus of this thread.

It seems more like you just reject the things we already know and just want some "new perspective", but that's like seeing a boulder rolling; giving clues to what will eventually be invented as a wheel, yet reject that observed boulder rolling and instead force everyone to think about some new idea about what constitutes rolling as some abstract new intuition.

Otherwise you need to clarify further what you actually mean.

The first conclusion is that there are no rational reasons to believe that consciousness always come with the notion of individual. And that therefore, they should be treated as two different matters. The second derives from the first one: there could be several neural networks experiencing consciousness in our brain. — Skalidris

All of this I elaborated on. I'm not sure you really engaged with the text I wrote?

The notion of the individual, the "self" the self-awareness is an emergent property out of our type of consciousness. There are speculations of other animals to have a sense of individuality, but consciousness in nature seem to be a gradient rather than some hard cut-off point. Some animals are only functioning as pure machines with sensory inputs, acting on instinct and behavior, sometimes in hives. Mammals and many birds seem to show higher cognitive abilities where some are able to recognize their own image in a mirror and communication behaviors that requires a notion of the self. So it seems like its scientifically clear that individuality and consciousness are not the same and that individuality is an emergent property out of specific forms or levels of consciousness.

Sticking to the science, we already know in neuroscience that we have parts of the brain that acts as subfunctions. They're not as rigid in one place as previously thought, but spreads out from specific positions in the brain. All these functions on their own does nothing but control certain parts of cognition and requires interconnections to form our experience. Evidence of this comes from retellings of people waking up from death (brain being inactive through loss of oxygen). How their experience of the world, if first and only registered through memory, and only a small fraction of other functions "turning on" one after another; their experience is of an utter lack of understanding of anything around them. With surreal events that have no meaning or value, no purpose in the form of identity. Only when all systems comes in sync does the person start to sense themselves "become". A key part of this is due to memory, if memories aren't formed then there's no sense of time and consciousness without the experience of time is just a function that has no sense of existence. That is possibly the experience of each part of the brain, much like insects in a hive.

a thread about challenging our intuitions of consciousness. — Skalidris

Hi all,

I added you all to this reply because I think my comments here relate to the discussions that have been had thus far.

I have been rethinking my own intuitions on consciousness. In particular, I have been considering Christoffer's claim that consciousness is an illusion. I ask myself, in what sense could it be thought to be an illusion?

There are at least two ways of thinking about it (that I can presently think of). One way is to say free will is an illusion. I disagree with that assertion. On the other hand, when one says "consciousness is an illusion" they could mean something like -- you are not your thoughts. In that case "I think, therefore, I am" would be kind of a non-sequitur. You think. Yes. You are. Yes. But you are not because you think. After all, I would say we may not have that much control over our thoughts as far as I can tell, so I see no reason to think that our identity should be linked to our thoughts.

Negative thinking, patterns of thought, insofar as we identify these things with consciousness, it is easier to see how consciousness is an illusion; it is an illusion just as negative thinking and patterns of thought are an illusion, they are part of a script so to speak. In addition, a person is not identical to or the same as a mental illness they may have - mental illness does not define anyone.

For the sake of clarity, I do think we have free will and that we are responsible for what we do and what we say, even though I don't think we have control over our emotions and maybe not our thoughts either.

if you ever want to communicate with the general population — mentos987

Descartes wrote in French mainly because he wanted his text to be accessible to people who did not master Latin. How many people today, even after mass printing and several translation, read the Discourse or the Metaphysical Meditations? Perhaps communication with the general populations is a pipe dream of humble members of the elite who believe they are closer to the average person than the average person is close to an orangutang — and I don't say this as an insult, more as a bitter and unfortunate realisation.
The average global IQ is, contrary to popular belief, not 100; far from that, it is in the 80s.

"I think, therefore I am" is, to me, the best foundation of logic that has ever been written. I am glad he did translate it. I just do not think it is perfectly worded.

close to an orangutang — Lionino

We are animals. As long as people what to be good, I see reason to hope. And besides, not everyone has use for this kind of knowledge.

free will and that we are responsible for what we do and what we say — NotAristotle

No free will does not mean no responsibility. It only means that you have no responsibility towards the creator.

Without free will we would still be responsible to each other? Walk me through that.

Its relative. We may be machines, but we then live in a world of machines. Responsibility is just another tool that lets us function in larger groups, and if anyone refuses utilize this tool, they become a problem for the rest to deal with.

However, no free will would mean that we are never "ultimately responsible".

Sorry Mentos but I don't think people are "problems to be dealt with." People "have problems," maybe, but no person is "a problem" or "the problem."

I think we may think of responsibility in relational terms. We are responsible to another for our actions. Responsibility doesn't entail punishment, rather it entails the possibility for reconciliation (a relational "event" that is mediated between persons); at least, that is how I see it.

I don't think people are "problems to be dealt with — NotAristotle

In the case of us having no free will: Responsibility would be a tool to help tie a person to an outcome. Good or bad.

but no person is "a problem" or "the problem." — NotAristotle

A homicidal murderer running lose is little else but "a problem". There may be more to that person sure, but their defining characteristic in the eyes of society will be: "a problem" to be dealt with.

I see your point, yeah I guess I think people's actions can be "a problem."

Perhaps communication with the general populations is a pipe dream of humble members of the elite who believe they are closer to the average person than the average person is close to an orangutang — and I don't say this as an insult, more as a bitter and unfortunate realisation. — Lionino

My wife and I recently came to this conclusion reluctantly. Most people are either not capable, or lack any inherent interest, in 'thinking further'. Makes life kind of hard when you're aware of it, but it instills a certain sympathy for a huge swathe of previously-irking behaviour. Part of my motivation to find this forum, in fact, was the abject failure to find people who want to discuss these things (or at least, are capable of doing so). Facebook seems to be a great aggregator of Dunning-Kruger effects, to the degree that that's an actual thing.

Orangutan* btw ;)

Makes life kind of hard when you're aware of it, but it instills a certain sympathy for a huge swathe of previously-irking behaviour — AmadeusD

Agreed.

Facebook seems to be a great aggregator of Dunning-Kruger effects, to the degree that that's an actual thing. — AmadeusD

And Discord, and Reddit, and Telegram, and Twitter. Quora has a surprising amount of specialists and talented amateurs posting despite the torrents of shit and bots that site has, but it is not a platform for discussing.

Thinking more on it, I believe I was semi wrong. Both free will and responsibility are tied to the level you operate on. And if you are talking about the same level of reality, then responsibility does require free will.

Guess you can say it like this: The characters in a good book I am reading have no responsibilities to me, but they do to each other. They also have free will relative to each other, even though it is my imagination that drives it all.

However, when we talk about free will we often refere to our free will relative to something higher than us (god) and not relative to other humans.

Yeah, I'm not sure we can give a coherent account of responsibility without free will.

Negative thinking, patterns of thought, insofar as we identify these things with consciousness, it is easier to see how consciousness is an illusion; it is an illusion just as negative thinking and patterns of thought are an illusion, they are part of a script so to speak. — NotAristotle

I'd like to hear what your idea of an illusion is for you to conclude that "negative thinking" is illusory. Is positive thinking somehow more real than negative?

Agree, if there is not any kind of relationship then it is difficult to see how there can be responsibility, reconciliation, accountability, forgiveness, contrition, reward, gift, mercy.

It may seem strange, but I would say negative thinking is more illusory than positive thinking in that one who thinks negatively (about themselves or about others) is, in my opinion, further from the truth; they do not see themselves or others as-they-are-in-reality; that is, with understanding/patience/and in a word, love. Maybe it's somewhat tautological, but I think illusion is separation from truth.