The physical processes themselves are the so-called subjective conscious experience in a way that cannot be better described by an abstraction.
There’s no such thing as a conscious experience without physical processes and no hard-line difference between different physical reactions that would differentiate consciousness and non-consciousness.
By consciousness I mean the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be. That things have qualia.
It’s perfectly conceivable to imagine a human-like creature acting just like us and having a brain processing all that information, but it doesn’t feel like anything to be that creature. A philosophical zombie, so to speak.
That’s what’s utterly mystical to me. How can physical processes inside the brain give rise to subjective experiences i.e. consciousness?
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.
somebody will argue that consciousness was there first and the whole body + brain is actually kind of a dream …
(not how i view it though. i have a different answer)
my answer is that consciousness does not emanate from the brain at all, but from the fact that we are alive. in other words, i believe that consciousness is a property that many or all forms of life have evolved to have because/as long as it is advantageous to them. this view is called “existentialism” btw. things derive from the fact that we exist (as living beings).
I don’t think that’s existentialism. Existentialism is about the meaning of human existence, freedom, and authenticity - not about whether consciousness emerges from the brain or from being alive. Your view sounds more like a some form of panpsychism.
Easy: How does subjective conscious experience arise from physical processes in the brain?
“It’s complicated.”
The physical processes themselves are the so-called subjective conscious experience in a way that cannot be better described by an abstraction.
There’s no such thing as a conscious experience without physical processes and no hard-line difference between different physical reactions that would differentiate consciousness and non-consciousness.
By consciousness I mean the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be. That things have qualia.
It’s perfectly conceivable to imagine a human-like creature acting just like us and having a brain processing all that information, but it doesn’t feel like anything to be that creature. A philosophical zombie, so to speak.
That’s what’s utterly mystical to me. How can physical processes inside the brain give rise to subjective experiences i.e. consciousness?
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.
somebody will argue that consciousness was there first and the whole body + brain is actually kind of a dream …
(not how i view it though. i have a different answer)
my answer is that consciousness does not emanate from the brain at all, but from the fact that we are alive. in other words, i believe that consciousness is a property that many or all forms of life have evolved to have because/as long as it is advantageous to them. this view is called “existentialism” btw. things derive from the fact that we exist (as living beings).
I don’t think that’s existentialism. Existentialism is about the meaning of human existence, freedom, and authenticity - not about whether consciousness emerges from the brain or from being alive. Your view sounds more like a some form of panpsychism.