Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
What I imagine to be the "true" answer to the question is that "consciousness" isn't really real, but if it's thought of as a result of physical/chemical properties, then there's no dividing line between what reactions count as consciousness (ie, a waterfall or tectonic plate could also be conscious).
You can't prove that you experience that sort of intangible experience and it can't be measured or well-defined, so I'm personally inclined to not really believe in it at all.
OR if we do accept that it's a result of chemical reactions and we want to define it in terms of those, then there's not a strong reason to differentiate a human experience from rocks or computers or waterfalls.
I think people are inclined to think that such a thing exists because we have the abilities of memory and communication, but the concept itself I think is not very useful. Which is why I suspect that a magically True answer would say that the physicality of the brain itself is as close as you can get to that idea.
Well, there's zero doubt whether I'm conscious myself. It's the only thing in the entire universe that I'm absolutely sure cannot be an illusion, because the fact that it is like something to be me (whatever "me" is) is undeniable from my subjective perspective.
But you're right that I can't make absolute statements about the conscious states of other people, animals, or even inanimate objects like rocks. I'm fairly certain that other humans are conscious too. This applies to animals as well, and it's probably like something to be an insect. A rock, however? I'm not going to claim with absolute certainty that it's not like anything to be a rock, but the thought of that is so incomprehensible that I don't really waste much time even thinking about it.