you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

Speculation on organic consciousness is pretty much esoteric, too, given that science can’t even reach a consensus on a definition of “consciousness” yet.

For that matter, the scientific boundary between “organic” and “inorganic” is really fuzzy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Speculation on organic consciousness is pretty much esoteric, too,

    I don't disagree. I just don't see any reason for even an esoteric basis to speculate that consciousness is in any way analogous to computer software simply because "we invented this thing so we must apply it's logic to ourselves." It smacks of the "machine" view of how the human body works that became prevalent in medicine after industrialisation - and even today it is still a way of understanding human physiology that causes far more problems than it solves.

    Ie, there's no speculative basis for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    That’s a different point to the one I was replying to. I was replying to your dismissal of the conversation as esoteric, based on it discussing specifically non-organic consciousness.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    That's because everybody arguing with me is conflating me saying that consciousness is not software with an attack on their favourite sci-fi genre (cyberpunk). And they're completely missing the whole point of cyberpunk by doing so, if you ask me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments