For which of these groups are some or all members conscious?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 07:05:40 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  For which of these groups are some or all members conscious?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: See title
#1
Adult humans
 
#2
Cats
 
#3
Fish
 
#4
Flies
 
#5
Worms
 
#6
Plants
 
#7
Particles
 
#8
Newborn babies
 
#9
Current AI systems
 
#10
Future AI systems
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 14

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: For which of these groups are some or all members conscious?  (Read 338 times)
Aurelius
Cody
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,163
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 30, 2022, 01:03:26 AM »

Taken from the PhilPapers survey. The parts relating to panpsychism and AI are particularly interesting to me.

I went with adult humans, cats, fish, and newborn babies. I'm undecided on flies.
Logged
Aurelius
Cody
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,163
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2022, 01:36:51 AM »

Explanation of my answers:

Adult humans - no explanation needed here. I'm curious what's going on with the ~5 percent of PhilPapers survey respondents who answered "no" to this one.

Cats - it's generally believed that cats have intelligence roughly equivalent to that of a 2 or 3 year old child. I have at least one clear memory from when I was two, and a handful from when I was 3. Unless you accept the young-earth creationist narrative that God created humans fully formed (which I obviously don't), then consciousness didn't just magically pop into fully formed existence upon human evolution reaching some magic threshold. It must have appeared, probably gradually, at some point along the evolutionary tree. I feel confident saying that Lucy of Atlas fame had conscious experience, for example. The question is how far back do you go, which is of course subjective. I believe that animals whose intelligence is sufficient to be equated with humans old enough to form memories are conscious, at least.

Fish - manta rays and cleaner wrasses have passed the mirror test, putting them in good intellectual company. I also have a subjective feeling that sharks and similar animals also have conscious experience, that I can't provide objective reasoning for.

Flies - this is a difficult one. They certainly have the basic sensory organs to have the possibility of a meaningful internal subjective experience, but I have doubts.

Worms - their nervous systems are so simple, and their sensory organs so primitive, I don't see what input they even have to be conscious about.

Plants - same as worms but even more clear-cut. They don't have any nervous system whatsoever, unlike worms.

Particles - no (not a panpsychist)

Newborn babies - yes. It's true that basically no one has memories from that early, but the lack of very early memories in general is in part because we didn't have the conceptual and literal language then that we would now use to describe them. But lack of memories alone isn't proof - for example, I feel very confident stating that adults with anterograde amnesia have consciousness. Newborn baby brains, while less well developed than adult brains, are still basically human brains and I feel comfortable saying yes.

Current AI - no (not a panpsychist)

Future AI - no (not a panpsychist)

It's 11:30pm and I'm going to bed, maybe I'll elaborate on the last two later.
Logged
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,423


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2022, 12:32:10 AM »
« Edited: March 31, 2022, 12:40:42 AM by Supporter and promoter of anti-white racism »

Explanation of my answers:

Adult humans - no explanation needed here. I'm curious what's going on with the ~5 percent of PhilPapers survey respondents who answered "no" to this one.

They're probably eliminative materialists interested in illusionism, aka reductionist materialism for insufferable edgelords who don't know what an emergent property is.
Logged
Aurelius
Cody
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,163
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.35, S: 0.35

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2022, 12:46:24 AM »

Explanation of my answers:

Adult humans - no explanation needed here. I'm curious what's going on with the ~5 percent of PhilPapers survey respondents who answered "no" to this one.

They're probably eliminative materialists interested in illusionism, aka reductionist materialism for insufferable edgelords who don't know what an emergent property is.

Upon looking more closely at the results, only 0.18% actually responded "no" to adult humans on that question. The balance of respondents gave various forms of non-answer.

Yeah, eliminative material seems at a glance like ridiculous hyper-materialism.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,116
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2022, 11:52:42 PM »

Adult humans, cats, fish, flies, worms, and babies.
Logged
Cokeland Saxton
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,604
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: -6.26

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2022, 10:12:46 AM »

Humans only
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.224 seconds with 14 queries.