[ppod]

> I am interested in the notion or aspect of consciousness that relates to why people behave the way they do, think the way they think, and are not only largely oblivious to it (the idea of examining behavior and the ~motivations behind it) but commonly hostile to it, sometimes extremely so. Or even more interestingly, the ability to easily notice the behavior in others, but utterly incapable of seeing the same thing in oneself.

I completely agree that this is maybe the most interesting general field of inquiry out there, I just think that the consciousness literature/debate has almost nothing of interest to say on it. I think the fields of interest are evolutionary psychology, neurobiology, and at a higher level the interface between sociology and behavioural psychology.

>a terrible analogy might be how humans can see one segment of the light spectrum, while other mammals can see others, and machines can see more

I like analogies like this and am totally on board with you here. But again, things like 'Mary's Room' are not at all interesting or detailed addresses to this when we know so much about how brains and bodies and artificial neural networks can hold and use so many kinds of knowledge at different levels.

You're getting kind of towards Penrose territory at the end there with suggesting that there could be senses or phenomenologies that we currently know nothing of the mechanisms of. I agree that this is true in principle but I think that the evidence that we have from biology and from artificial intelligence suggests that we could probably explain all of our abilities just with physical properties that we already understand. I wouldn't rule out some quantum component though. I think that it's likely the problem is one of scale and complexity rather than a qualitatively new kind of process. The brain is not only huge but is designed by a messy ad-hoc evolutionary process that is hostile to interpretation by our own reflexive symbolic investigation, and I'd say that's where the difficulty lies. I completely agree with your line of thinking though.

[goatlover]

> I like analogies like this and am totally on board with you here. But again, things like 'Mary's Room' are not at all interesting or detailed addresses to this when we know so much about how brains and bodies and artificial neural networks can hold and use so many kinds of knowledge at different levels.

Mary's Room demonstrates that's there's more to knowing the world than just third person descriptions. There's also experience.

Whether you want to call experience a form of knowledge, or something else like an ability is the crux of whether that particular argument works or not, since it's based on whether knowing all the physical facts leaves some knowledge out (experiential).

But I think it works to show that our physical theories of the world can't capture our experience of the world, because one is abstract and mathematical, and the other is how we perceive and feel. So nothing about biology, physics or ANNs bridges that gap, I don't think, since they're expressed in third person terminology. That's the hard problem.

[mistermann]

> I completely agree that this is maybe the most interesting general field of inquiry out there, I just think that the consciousness literature/debate has almost nothing of interest to say on it. I think the fields of interest are evolutionary psychology, neurobiology, and at a higher level the interface between sociology and behavioural psychology.

Based on what little I know, I would agree, but lots of obviously knowledgeable people in the thread so thought I'd throw a line out there.

> Mary's room

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

"Roughly thirty years later, Feigl expresses a similar notion. He concerns himself with a Martian, studying human behavior, but lacking human sentiments. Feigl says: "...the Martian would be lacking completely in the sort of imagery and empathy which depends on familiarity (direct acquaintance) with the kinds of qualia to be imaged or empathized" "

Yes, this is exactly the "neighborhood" I'm thinking of (whether or not Mary's room is useful to me or not).

"Nagel takes a slightly different approach. In an effort to make his argument more adaptable and relatable, he takes the stand of humans attempting to understand the sonar capabilities of bats. Even with the entire physical database at one's fingertips, humans would not be able to fully perceive or understand a bat's sonar system, namely what it is like to perceive something with a bat's sonar."

This is another good example, although again not very useful in and of itself. This is the "type" of thing I'm thinking about though, one might comparing it to Human "feelings". Now, it's easy for a "math minded" person to casually discount or handwave away an individual person's "feelings" as some sort of a delusion, mental flaw, lack of education, etc. This is my natural tendency as well. But the older I get, the more I am beginning to think that this thinking will eventually be discovered to be incorrect. Something seems missing to me.

> but I think that the evidence that we have from biology and from artificial intelligence suggests that we could probably explain all of our abilities just with physical properties that we already understand

Oh sure, that's fine. I see that as the underlying mechanism, which is also important, but I'm not interested in that aspect of it. The resulting consequences, the nature and classification/understanding/deconstruction of consciousness, or more specifically quantifying human behavior, is all I'm interested in gaining a better understanding of.

I can't imagine the specific idea I have in mind is novel in any way, but whether anyone has considered it interesting enough to pursue (among all the other competing interesting ideas in this space) is what I'm trying to figure out.

[mistermann]

This Mary's Room discussion may not be the exact topic I'm looking for, but it references the sorts of things I'm interested in.

So, it seems our choices are:

Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

The term qualia derives from the Latin neuter plural form (qualia) of the Latin adjective quālis (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkʷaːlɪs]) meaning "of what sort" or "of what kind" in a specific instance like "what it is like to taste a specific orange, this particular orange now". Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky. As qualitative characters of sensation, qualia stand in contrast to "propositional attitudes",[1] where the focus is on beliefs about experience rather than what it is directly like to be experiencing.

Philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett once suggested that qualia was "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us"

Physicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

In philosophy, physicalism is the ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical,[1] or that everything supervenes on the physical.[2] Physicalism is a form of ontological monism—a "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view. Both the definition of "physical" and the meaning of physicalism have been debated.

Epiphenomenalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

Physicalism x -1 -->

Pluralism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_(philosophy)

Pluralism is a term used in philosophy, meaning "doctrine of multiplicity", often used in opposition to Monism ("doctrine of unity") and Dualism ("doctrine of duality"). The term has different meanings in metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and logic. In metaphysics, Pluralism is the doctrine that - contrary to the assertions of Monism and Dualism - there are in fact many different substances in Nature that constitute Reality.

--> Substance Theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Substance theory, or substance attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood, positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.[1]

--> Thing-in-itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thing-in-itself

Kant argued the sum of all objects, the empirical world, is a complex of appearances whose existence and connection occur only in our representations.[2] Kant introduces the thing-in-itself as follows: And we indeed, rightly considering objects of sense as mere appearances, confess thereby that they are based upon a thing in itself, though we know not this thing as it is in itself, but only know its appearances, viz., the way in which our senses are affected by this unknown something.

It's very easy for someone in no background in philosophy to get lost in a rabbit hole of interesting definitions, and then along the way you completely forget why you're doing this in the first place.

So, let's start over from a different angle...

Love https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

Love encompasses a variety of different emotional and mental states, typically strongly and positively experienced, ranging from the most sublime virtue or good habit, the deepest interpersonal affection and to the simplest pleasure.[1][2] An example of this range of meanings is that the love of a mother differs from the love of a spouse differs from the love of food. Most commonly, love refers to a feeling of strong attraction and emotional attachment.[3] Love can also be a virtue representing human kindness, compassion, and affection, as "the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another".[4] It may also describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one's self or animals.[5]

Alexithymia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia

Alexithymia /ˌeɪlɛksəˈθaɪmiə/ is a personality construct characterized by the subclinical inability to identify and describe emotions in the self.[1] The core characteristics of alexithymia are marked dysfunction in emotional awareness, social attachment, and interpersonal relating.[2] Furthermore, people with alexithymia have difficulty in distinguishing and appreciating the emotions of others, which is thought to lead to unempathic and ineffective emotional responding.[2] Alexithymia occurs in approximately 10% of the population and can occur with a number of psychiatric conditions.[3]

Frisson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisson

Frisson (French for 'shiver') is a sensation somewhat like shivering, usually caused by stimuli other than cold. It is typically expressed as an overwhelming emotional response combined with piloerection (goosebumps). Stimuli that produce a response are specific to the individual.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

Listening to emotionally moving music is the most common trigger of frisson, but some feel it while looking at beautiful artwork, watching a particularly moving scene in a movie, or having physical contact with another person. Studies have shown that roughly two-thirds of the population feels frisson.

Where I'm going from here is basically, "So what?".

Roughly, the important idea I'm trying to get at is: what is the significance of all these ideas. Frisson is a particularly interesting phenomenon, in that different people feel it in response to very different things, and some people literally can't feel it at all!

Now take love....very similar phenomenon, but even more powerful, by far. Also, it is experienced vastly differently by (and, like Frisson, not felt by everyone).

So what?

Well, I think all of this is fundamental to the human experience, but more importantly, it is a fundamental root cause of why people can't get along (and recently, really really really can't get along).

So what?

Well, I wonder if maybe we can go a long way to fixing this problem of societal disunity if these ideas could somehow be summarized and effectively communicated to people. I think lots of people would be understanding/accepting of the premise, and lots wouldn't. Some would be hostile in various ways, and for various reasons (some honest and understandable, some evil). Of those who understand and appreciate the principle though, how many would "really get it". Sure, they could appreciate on an intellectual level, but "really getting it" is on the level of frisson and love. Is there a way to get people to that higher level? Why yes....yes there is.

I am going to push save now in case someone is still here and sees where I'm going with all this, and may know of any resources along this same theme.

To be continued....