What does /sci/ think of Dennett's multiple drafts model of consciousness?

>>16702525 (OP)
idk wat this is

>>16702525 (OP)
>consciousness
No such thing.
It's a poorly defined term for the feeling of being self-aware to the point of being able to analyze your own though process.
You're nothing but a deterministic biological computing machine reacting to stimuli.
There's no magic sauce, it's just physics doing its thing.

>>16702894
>no such thing as consciousness
>goes on to define consciousness

quintessential 100 IQ /sci/ poster

>>16702878
Dennett, being a physicalist, believed that consciousness was based in the physical but could not be located at a central place(s) within the brain due to the problem of infinite regress like in the concept of the Cartesian theater but rather a system of competing "drafts" where the brain makes judgements based off initial conditions to create a scenario of the world and thereby consciousness. A bit more complicated than that but that is the gist. See Libet experiments and color phi phenomenon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_phi_phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
>>16702894
Maybe you'll be interested in the theory then.

Dennett wasn't sentient

>>16702920
I can't see this phi illusion, I'm only able to perceive objective reality (schizo?) but I don't see what Dennet's problem is with the "Orwellian" approach of speculatively executing then backpatching consciousness as necessary. All modern computers must do this to achieve high performance (they used to use the "Stalinesque" buffering approach, but it introduces too much latency).

I am once again begging in vain for philosophers to understand computation :(

>>16702894
> poorly defined term
> gets beaten into a pulp and loses consciousness
LMAO

>>16702910
>misses point
>complains about muh fallacies
quintessential philosotard poster

Eliminative materialists are just solipsists in denial. It's easy to deny the consciousness of another person because you have no access to it. You cannot say you have seen through the illusion of your own consciousness without kidding yourself.

>>16702525 (OP)
Makes a lot more sense than the idea of a conscious "thing" since the brain does parallel processing. Chemical alterations or physical damage to the brain can alter manifestations of consciousness, lending credence to the idea that it's a sum of separate parts.

How does the dualist gang solve the hard problem of unconsciousness? The formulation is as follows:
Why do some things not feel like anything? How does the unconscious mind perform rapid parallel processing to control multiple voluntary muscles which consciousness could override? How does the thought of the subjective quality of "redness" make the hippocampus-V1 link physically present the image of photons in the wavelength band defined as red?
In this very moment, my retinas are being blasted by photons from all over the spectrum, yet the image being projected into my consciousness discards the vast majority of them to the point where I cannot list every single color in my present field of view unless I stop, alter my gaze and start focusing on the colors and counting them one by one. How does the unconscious mind select this?
Are philosophical non-zombies possible? Beings with 100% consciousness that is aware of the entire spectrum of mental phenomena at any given moment, rather than just focusing on chunks? If so, why aren't we like that? Why do only some specific processes get the magic experience dust? If consciousness is a physical thing (non-dualist view), then this is easily explained by pointing that it requires resources, which the brain has in limitation. But in the dualist view, which rejects physicalism, consciousness is not a physical process, and therefore has no reason to be limited by energy (which is something firmly trapped in the physical realm and can even be quantized with mass-energy equivalency), so why the hell is it not monitoring everything it can all at once?
Being overwhelmed by sensory input is a major issue in autism. A lot more neurons fire all over the place than the focused electrical activity of non-autistic brains.
And yet, autists, who are more conscious, have a clear tendency to have a more mechanical view of the world with fragmented perception instead of religious/spiritual views with a stronger sense of united self/soul.

>>16702894
>You're nothing but a deterministic biological computing machine reacting to stimuli.
>There's no magic sauce, it's just physics doing its thing.

Why is it bad if we torture you? You're just an arrangement of information like anything else.

>>16703692
>Why is it bad if we torture you?
Why does there have to be a susbtrate of "badness" instead of simply him resisting because he doesn't want to be hurt, and this scaling up to more people who aren't sadists existing and agreeing on a system that attempts to minimize undesirable occurrences such as being tortured because they largely agree arbitrarily that they don't want it?

>>16703733
Why should the torturers care about the cry babies? Indeed, it is the cry babies that paradoxically must inflict violence on the torturers thereby proving the case.

>>16703794
>Why should the torturers care about the cry babies?
They don't have to? Go ahead and start torturing people all you want. You might notice that this results in them calling the cops because there is a general consensus that most people don't want torture to be a thing, therefore they build institutions to prevent it.

>>16703733
>torture someone
>please stop
>why?
>well, it's really quite arbitrary you see, but..

>>16703802
>You might notice that this results in them calling the cops

Why is this bad? it just puts the universe in an information state where the torturer is in prison

You can't point to any consequences that matter

>>16703818
No, it's "please stop because we'll call the cops and lock you up otherwise". Actual, tangible consequences.
>>16703819
>Why is this bad?
Why would it be good or bad? There are simply more people with more power and influence on the "I don't want torture to be a thing" side of the scale overall, resulting in would-be torturers being suppressed by the systems they create.

>>16703821
>No, it's "please stop because we'll call the cops and lock you up otherwise". Actual, tangible consequences.

Yes its a consequence as in con sequence, one event comes after another. But why does it matter? Surely it must matter because you brought it up.

>Why would it be good or bad?

Then what is it? Why is anyone supposed to care? You keep saying "but then this will happen" and refuse to say anything about it or what your point is

>>16703733
>Why does there have to be a susbtrate of "badness" instead of simply him resisting because he doesn't want to be hurt

So if we briefly tortured you with a physically harmless method then put you under general anesthesia shortly after so you couldn't remember it or get PTSD, you would be fine with doing it for science and philosophy? Do you have a reason you would say no that's not "lol im too busy".

>>16703826
>why does it matter?
It only matters if you care about it. Torture and risk being punished, don't torture and and do something else if you prefer.
>Why is anyone supposed to care?
Again, they're not "supposed to" in the same way you're not "supposed to care" if your house is on fire. Die in the fire if you don't give a fuck. Just know that going around torturing others or ignoring housefires has consequences.
>>16703829
>if we briefly tortured you with a physically harmless method then put you under general anesthesia shortly after so you couldn't remember it or get PTSD
An interesting thought experiment. I personally would not be willing to do it on the grounds that I don't want to. Therefore this would necessitate me being overpowered and forced into it. Two possible paths:
1. Society and its institutions are on my side; in this case, you're discouraged from doing that to me because, if you get caught, you go to jail/have to pay me compensation/etc. It can still happen, but you and others like you are dissuaded from it.
2. Society and institutions are on YOUR side, and randomly torturing people then making them forget it is a national pastime. In this case, my only recourse is to take the minority stance and attempt to influence society to alter it by any of a myriad of means available (power, money, politics, whatever).
Now I ask you: suppose we decided to mutilate the penis of a majority of newborn males and randomly cut off their foreskins. Suppose this practice is defended as a tradition by people who overwhelming claim that morality is objective and torturing others then making them forget about it is wrong, even though that is essentially what they are doing to babies, since they get physically harmed and then have no memory of the event. How do they reconcile those views?

>>16703831
>It only matters if you care about it.

Why would anyone care about anything?

I'm basically asking why I should care. And you're response is you should care if you care bro

>Again, they're not "supposed to" in the same way you're not "supposed to care" if your house is on fire.

Then why reply to me with information if I'm not supposed to care about it. Your position is I shouldn't care about what you have to say yet you keep posting

>>16703835
>Why would anyone care about anything?
This is a problem for dualists who think their consciousness is a spooky ghost that can independently push and pull caring levers. In the physicalist interpretation, you don't get to choose what you care about. You don't choose to make your nerves feel pain, you don't choose to interpret pain as undesirable, you don't choose to avoid pain in the future based on past experiences. What is the mechanism for voluntarily caring? How does it work? Does it lead to falsifiable predictions?

>>16703831
Only the last part of your post gets to the point of mine. The point of the thought experiment is your knowledge of the torture and evidence for the torture is erased, so it has no "consequences" of significance.

> I personally would not be willing to do it on the grounds that I don't want to.

Why don't you want to? And "I dont want to" is extremely weak language in the sense of an honest answer. That's right, you'd have to be forced. So not only am I asking why don't you want to be tortured. But why would you have to be forced? Why would you fight like hell to prevent or escape this torture if everything will fine?

And since you asked, yes, " the baby doesn't remember his dick being cut off" is a bad argument for surgery on infants with no anesthesia. Nor do I think foreskins should be removed in 99% of cases.

>>16703840
>it has no "consequences" of significance
It does even if I have no lasting damage or memory because you've still ultimately wasted my limited lifetime.
>Why don't you want to?
Because I'd rather do something else with my time. What causes me to have preferences? Instincts and the mental processes they give rise to.
>"I dont want to" is extremely weak language in the sense of an honest answer
Why? This is literally how the world works. People aren't not torturing because it's bad and badness has some kind of effect that prevents it; it's because they don't want to, and the reason they don't want to is either because they have no innate desire to so in the first place, or because they do but they estimate that the risk of being punished by institutions outweighs the benefit of satisfying their sadistic impulses.
If I lived in your hypothetical society in which everyone but me wants to torture me, they would likely create a narrative as to why they must do so as it's "objectively good" for some reason.

>>16703844
Yeah that's what I thought, "I'm too busy". The reason you're refusing torture is the amount of time it would consume. I didn't think I could actually get you to say something so obviously stupid. If I asked you to watch the new snow white you would tell me that's a waste of time. If I had you tied to a chair for 30 seconds you would cry and shit yourself and look vastly less pathetic than you do right now, posting absolute nonsense that's a somehow a low point for a shistposting board.

>>16703850
So what's your argument? That you subjectively don't like the idea of someone subjectively not wanting to be tortured just because they don't feel like it? Did you arrive at this point because you just felt like it?

>>16703844
You're wasting your limited lifetime right now

>>16703844
No. You are just calling it bad while simultaneously only say its bad because you falsely claim that people agree with you.
Laws are not historically written based on any average consensus and the doctrines that uphold the laws also violate them. Prison, of course, is torture.
But of course, you having no understanding or any sort of ground, will make up some garbage about suffering and harm which you can't sustain. Instead, its torture, but your particular bran of torture is the one that is not okay.

>>16703880
>You are just calling it bad
Only if you word it in a way that my personal dislike of it means it's bad.
>Laws are not historically written based on any average consensus
This is just one example. Laws *can* be written due to social consensus, or they can be imposed by a king or lobbied for by the rich etc etc. I personally prefer the consensus based kind.
>Prison, of course, is torture.
Even if you want to call it torture, in this scenario, it is a "torture" as consequence for torturing others for sadistic pleasure which ultimately reduces overall incidence of torture on the unwilling. The whole conversation started as "why should someone not just torture others"? And the answer is simply: go ahead, torture away, just know that enough people with enough power and influence subjectively dislike sadistic torture to the point they create institutions to prevent it. Hence real life, tangible consequences such as getting caught are what actually reduces torture, not the pretense that ethics exists in some kind of free-floating realm of its own.

>>16703886
No. People are sent to prison - tortured, that is - for all kinds of reasons. You are just factually wrong. Your statement has no actual basis. You invoke what-ifs that can't be sustained.
Again, you have your own narrow definition. There is no consensus. You never voted on a single law ever. Even if the conclusion is true that torturing people reduces some other torture in some quasi-util argument space, it has nothing to do with consensus.
You are actually retarded.

>>16703886
Name ten laws at any level of government and the minimum or maximum penalty for them Mr consensus guy.

The "problems of consciouness" made up by philosophers and neuroscience frauds/failures are attempts to move the goal posts.

They decided in the 90's that scientists were answering too many questions about you know... how consciousness actually works in the brain...

So they decided to make up the "hard problem of consciousness" that only deals in philosophy. For example the "Cartesian Theater". Who is experiencing your subjective experiences? You are. YOU ARE, you fucking idiot. The subjective experience IS the neural processing, and all these theories are philosophical bullshit.

Take this stuff to /x/ philosophy does not belong on /sci/

>>16702525 (OP)
>Dennett
Stopped reading there. He's a moron.

>>16703922
>They decided in the 90's that scientists were answering too many questions about you know... how consciousness actually works in the brain...
>Take this stuff to /x/ philosophy does not belong on /sci/


If scientists figured it out, it belongs on sci, philosophy or not.

And how did they do that at all? For any experiment the only way to measure the conscious experience is to ask the conscious human about their experience, which is still anecdotal, on top of the fact that the very claim they are conscious is anecdotal. Nobody knows enough to prove to a non conscious AGI or an honest philosopher that consciousness is real. If any impartial entity looked at the body of our knowledge they have no other reason to believe in consciousness, other than humans consistently and conspicuously claim it's real. We only know about it because we are conscious ourselves. That remains true today.

>>16703733
I think it's really great how every time noncognitivism(ethics) shows up in discussion, the reaction always has the same form as old christian screeching about atheism.

>>16702972
best line lengths are between 50 and 75 characters, with experiments showing that the optimum is 66.

>>16702525 (OP)
I'm not familiar with it

>>16702894
>No such thing.
I think consciousness does exist - animals have consciousness, but rocks do not, for example.
>There's no magic sauce, it's just physics doing its thing.
I agree with that. Consciousness is just physical processes in the brain. Chemical and electrical processes.

>>16702525 (OP)
phrenology is real

The people in this thread are dumb as fuck. Not one of you have had any reason to actually think about consciousness and you've said some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard in my life. I knew humans were pretty dumb but holy shit.

>>16703692
>Why is it bad if we torture you?
Torture is a form of homosexual foreplay, and gay is a priori metaphysically bad regardless of consciousness factor. Even unconscious, unliving rocks indicate that gay is bad, that's why they are predisposed to being used in stoning of gays.

So there's no such thing as consciousness, but reality itself has an anti-gay bias, so gay things tend to end in public aversion, persecution, AIDS or biological extinction.

>>16703829
>So if we briefly tortured you with a physically harmless method then put you under general anesthesia shortly after so you couldn't remember it or get PTSD
Extremely gay.