[lisper]

> there are twins that can see with each other eyes or feel each other body

That's not the same as directly observing someone else's consciousness. That's just two people sharing some I/O devices.

In fact, one could argue that the inability to directly observe another consciousness is a necessary condition for being an individual: the limits of your direct observation is the definition of where "you" stop and the rest of the universe (including other people) begins.

[collyw]

> where "you" stop and the rest of the universe (including other people) begins

If you bother to delve into this idea you will see that there is no real boundary. Is the oxygen I breathe in part of "me"? If it gets used in a metabolic process, I would say yes. If it gets breathed straight out again less so. Are my gut bacteria part of me or not? There is more and more research that implies that they have an important effect of my well-being.

[lisper]

First, we're talking here about mental boundaries, not physical ones.

Second, I used to believe that there is no real boundary, but upon reflection realized that this is completely wrong. Not only is there a physical boundary, this boundary is essential because living systems must distinguish between themselves and the things in the universe that are potentially available to be used as resources to stay alive.

In fact, there are multiple physical boundaries in living systems at various levels of hierarchy, starting with the defining characteristic of most life on earth (by number of species, not total number of individuals or percentage of biomass) which is that it is eukaryotic and so has a boundary around the cell nucleus. Then there are cell walls, the segregation of cells into organs, and finally, your skin, which delineates a physical boundary around you. Yes, some of these boundaries are a little bit fuzzy. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Isinlor]

The notion of boundary is just not helpful in explaining some phenomena.

A virus RNA in nucleus of neurons in your brain is part of you or not? Is that alive or not? Conscious or not?

The same way as an idea of a point particle breaks down in quantum physics, the idea of binary "you" and "not you" breaks down due to nature of reality.

[lisper]

> A virus RNA in nucleus of neurons in your brain is part of you or not?

Depends on the virus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

> Is that lump of physical matter conscious or not?

Depends on the lump. The only lump of physical matter that I know with 100% certainty is conscious is me. But my consciousness produces behavior in me that is similar to behavior I observe in other lumps of physical matter. Furthermore, there's a lot of evidence that my consciousness is somehow bound to a particular physical structure, namely, my brain. So it seems reasonable to suppose that other lumps of physical matter that have brains and exhibit the kinds of behavior that I associate with my own consciousness also possess consciousness, and that lumps of physical matter that lack these things don't.

[Isinlor]

So, how does it depend on the virus? When it is when it is not?

[lisper]

Because some viruses are ERVs and some are not. Those that are are "part of me" and those that aren't aren't. (Isn't that obvious?)

[Isinlor]

It is not just sharing I/O devices. Brain conjoined twins can also share their mental states. They do experience each other qualia [0].

> Though Krista and Tatiana Hogan share a brain, the two girls showed distinct personalities and behavior. One example was when Krista started drinking her juice Tatiana felt it physically going through her body. In any other set of twins the natural conclusion about the two events would be that Krista's drinking and Tatiana's reaction would be coincidental. But because Krista and Tatiana are connected at their heads, whatever the girls do they do it together.

I also recall examples where one girl does not like eating something and so the other girl can not eat it because the other can feel it.

Concept of an individual is not a fundamental property of the universe. It is an emergent, fluid and complex concept.

There are people with multiple personality disorders. There are brain conjoined twins. There are people with severed corpus callosum.

E.g. here is report about one person [1]:

> After the right and left brain are separated, each hemisphere will have its own separate perception, concepts, and impulses to act. Having two "brains" in one body can create some interesting dilemmas. When one split-brain patient dressed himself, he sometimes pulled his pants up with one hand (that side of his brain wanted to get dressed) and down with the other (this side did not). He also reported to have grabbed his wife with his left hand and shaken her violently, at which point his right hand came to her aid and grabbed the aggressive left hand. However, such conflicts are very rare. If a conflict arises, one hemisphere usually overrides the other.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniopagus_twins#Media [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

[lisper]

> They do experience each other qualia.

How do you know? How could you possibly know?

I don't dispute that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between consciousnesses and bodies. Multiple consciousnesses could inhabit the same body (multiple personality, split brain, conjoined twins) and a single consciousness could be distributed across multiple bodies (I don't know of any examples but I can't think of any reason this should be impossible in principle). But there's a difference between receiving input from someone else's sensors and experiencing their qualia. It's the difference between, "This ice cream tastes like pistachio", and "This ice cream (which tastes like pistachio) tastes good." To demonstrate someone experiencing someone else's qualia you'd have to find an example where the two individuals had different preferences about something (like pistachio ice cream) and having one of them simultaneously experience liking it and not liking it. I don't see how that could be possible even in principle.

[Isinlor]

I use the same standard of knowing as I do for qualia in general. I listen to what other people report.

> there's a difference between receiving input from someone else's sensors and experiencing their qualia.

There can not be clear difference if you are not able to even fully separate two different personalities.

If distinction between personalities is fluid, then distinction between personalities qualia also has to be fluid.

[lisper]

But that's exactly what I'm asking: what does a report of shared qualia actually look like?

> If distinction between personalities is fluid

But it isn't. It might be vague but it isn't fluid. If two personalities are distinct then they remain distinct. It might be difficult to decide whether two different kinds of behavior are manifestations of two different personalities, or the same personality behaving differently from one moment to the next. But whatever criterion you apply, the situation is not going to change from one moment to the next. This is one of the defining characteristics of personalities. It is what allows you to say that a person is the same person as they were yesterday, despite their behavior today being different in some respects from what it was yesterday.

[Isinlor]

There can be one personality that can be split into two personalities. People with multiple personality disorders are not born with the disorder. The same with people whose corpus callosum is severed. It is fluid. The amount of damage to the brain will determine how distinct the personalities will be. If you could transplant brain it possible that one personality could create two fully distinct personalities. The process could be in principle also reverted back again leading to one personality.

Additionally, the process of separating parts of a brain is also continuous in time. People could be experiencing qualia when then brain is being damaged and the process could take long enough for them to register the states in between.

With regard to reports, here:

> He also reported to have grabbed his wife with his left hand and shaken her violently, at which point his right hand came to her aid and grabbed the aggressive left hand.

And here: https://youtu.be/N1Mac4FeKXg?t=124

With regard to definition of personalities - definitions created for an average case are often not sufficient to describe the reality. Quantum physics is a perfect example how reality can break old definitions.

[lisper]

> He also reported to have grabbed his wife with his left hand and shaken her violently, at which point his right hand came to her aid and grabbed the aggressive left hand.

I see that as evidence of two consciousnesses/personalities sharing one body (i.e. one set of I/O devices), not two personalities sharing qualia.

[collyw]

> Multiple consciousnesses could inhabit the same body (multiple personality, split brain, conjoined twins) and a single consciousness could be distributed across multiple bodies (I don't know of any examples but I can't think of any reason this should be impossible in principle).

When you go to a large event such as a concert, there is an "atmosphere". Do you think this could be considered a collective consciousness? You might dismiss it straight away, but this would be like a single neuron assuming that there isn't a higher level of consciousness built on top of it (assuming that the neuron is responsible for part of the consciousness).

[lisper]

No. The only reason I have to believe that any entity other than myself is conscious is by observing its I/O behavior and comparing it to my own behavior that is produced by my own consciousness. Crowds do not exhibit conscious behavior. I can't have a conversation with a crowd, only with the individuals in the crowd.

[gremlinsinc]

What if you're freddie mercury? I'm pretty sure he could converse with the crowd, he could speak to their "souls" and move them to do things like sing along, or stomp their feet.

[lisper]

Sure, but crowds actually don't behave like conscious entities. Getting a crowd to stomp its feet is not at all like having a conversation with a crowd. To have a conversation with something, that thing has to be able to somehow "talk back" and provide evidence that it has thoughts and ideas of its own. Crowds don't do that. To the contrary, crowds behave according to fairly simple dynamics, often the detriment of their constituents. There is no evidence at all of consciousness there.