I think that is a bit of a misleading way of putting it because the feeling being a “self” that is in charge of the body is an experience that is contained within consciousness rather than the essential nature of it; in principle, one could imagine having consciousness without any feeling of being a “self” at all.
If I had to define the nature of consciousness, I would say that it is essentially an internal simulation that the brain creates in order to aggregate information from various sources in order to facilitate processing and decision making. Just to be clear, this is not my own original idea, and more importantly I do not think that it is a particularly clever or deep way of thinking about consciousness, but rather the inevitable conclusion one reaches when one plays around with one’s own attention and awareness and sees what happens; the trick is just to do it like a scientist and be constantly challenging one’s own conclusions, rather than to invent one’s own version of chakras. I find it especially enlightening to watch what the mind does when one tries not to steer it into doing anything; with some practice, it is possible to watch the “self” pretend to be in charge while simultaneously realizing it is not, and this experience can be helpful (though frustratingly I have not found it to be as immediately life-changing as I might have hoped).
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Consciousness is 100% an emergent property.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Like why Reubens are so good. I don’t like salty protein, bread with caraway seeds, thousand island dressing or Swiss cheese, but fuck is a Reuben delicious.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Reubens are the only beef food I used eat in my 20s.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s why I said salty protein :) Swiss cheese is imo so unremarkable that the dairy free version is just as good, and a vegan Reuben is still a perfect sandwich.
AnActOfCreation@programming.dev 1 day ago
Can you explain what this means?
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
There’s no biological structure the creates consciousness to the ppint where you can say “if you have x, you’re conscious”, to the point where saying “humans are conscious” or even “only humans are conscious” aren’t always true. Many elephants are conscious. Some dogs are consciohs. Some humans aren’t. And no, the split between humans are/aren’t conscious ARE NOT CORRELATED WITH DEMOGRAPHIC (fuck Nazis and racists), nor is it easy to draw a line in the sand because it’s a spectrum.
It comes from having a brain that’s complex enough. Decision making process start interacting together in unexpenced ways, with subtle variations caused by genetics and history. Literally just read the wikipedia page the previous person posted and apply that same logic to brains and minds.
AnActOfCreation@programming.dev 1 day ago
Thank you!
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Conscious (sentience / sapience) is an ineffable, unmeasurable, quality. There is no way to say that one sentient being is more or less sentient than another. In fact there is no way to tell that I am not the only consciousness in existence but it feels rude not to give others the benefit of the doubt. We can create neurons and even small brains in the lab but we don’t have any way to instill life into that neuron. Consciousness simply emerges out of the constituent parts of being alive, possibly even as a result of the interactions of such a complex system.
AnActOfCreation@programming.dev 1 day ago
Thank you!
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Thanks for the daily dose of mini-existential crisis.
[Internal Monologue] What the fuck am I? HOW IS BEING ALIVE POSSIBLE? WTF?!?
SippyCup@feddit.nl 1 day ago
You are a nervous system, piloting a space suit made of meat.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I would be strongly emergent then. And strong emergence is basically magic.
derek@infosec.pub 1 day ago
I don’t see how either sentence follows. Rephrasing your comment and supplementing it with context to explain your reasoning may better communicate your point.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Weak emergence has qualities that arise from the fundamental features of the parts and the rules that connect them. For example, the shapes made by flocks of birds can be reduced to simple local interactions among the birds.
Strong emergence has qualities that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to the parts and their rules. These qualities are genuinely novel and bring powers that are not found in the constituents alone.
Strong emergence is like mixing two chemicals in a lab and, instead of producing a new compound, discovering an entirely new fundamental force of nature. Consciousness, in particular, seems to lack any physically grounded ontology. While this is a divisive claim, it is hardly original. Physicalists who appeal to weak emergence have not yet shown—nor may they ever be able to show—that consciousness is physically emergent. If strong emergence is to be taken seriously, it must be framed in a way that avoids looking like something from nothing, which would be indistinguishable from magic.
As of now, the physicalists have to demonstrate weak emergence. Failing that, we cannot dismiss strong emergence so that we don’t close the investigative and theory making space.
Chakravanti@monero.town 1 day ago
He’s not communicating. He’s bragging. Although in truth, he’s actually demonstrating because there’s no purpose in showing you his knowledge. That means he’s showing you what he understands and sees rather than explaining. Explaining is extensive and difficult because the many are blind even though they can read and don’t see their own lack of ability to see reality.
I can explain more deeply but I think I’m just going to go masterbate instead.