I agree with the other reply that you're overthinking this.

If you claim there's no distinction, then in terms of the meaning Nagel is trying to convey, you're claiming there's no distinction that sets you apart from a game of Tetris in terms of consciousness.

That's where my first reply to you was coming from: if you believe the distinction Nagel is trying to convey doesn't exist, that's tantamount to saying that consciousness as a real phenomenon doesn't exist - the eliminativist position - or something along those lines.

If you do believe consciousness exists, then you're simply arguing with the way Nagel is choosing to characterize it. I asked how you would describe it, but you haven't tried to address that.

▲

bondarchuk 5 days ago | parent [-]

But there are many things that set me apart from a game of Tetris! For example, I'm not made up of falling puzzle pieces, I enjoy drinking a cup of coffee every now and then, I was not invented by Alexey Pajitnov in 1985... The difference between an unconscious and a conscious thing could be a difference of this order, which does not at all amount to saying that consciousness does not exist.

▲

antonvs 5 days ago | parent [-]

We're not discussing whether you're identical to a game of Tetris.

We're discussing a way of characterizing the nature of the conscious experience that you presumably have, that a game of Tetris doesn't.

The way Nagel would put this is that "there is something it is like to be bondarchuk" - i.e., you have an experience of your existence that you can describe, because you're consciously aware of it.

We can ask the question of you, "What is it like to be bondarchuk?" and you can answer based on your actual experience. You wouldn't just be generating text in response to a prompt the way an LLM would, you'd be describing your conscious experience of your existence. For example, you say you enjoy drinking a cup of coffee occasionally. That's a conscious experience that shows that there is something it is like to be you.

There is, presumably, nothing it is like to be a Tetris game, because a Tetris game has no consciousness.

This is a standard, widely accepted characterization in consciousness studies. Even if you object to it, you should at least understand what it's saying. And if you do object to it, the onus is on you to provide a better description, which I note you've declined to do on multiple occasions now.

	▲	bondarchuk 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		>We're discussing a way of characterizing the nature of the conscious experience that you presumably have, that a game of Tetris doesn't. By talking of a different "nature" you already place the discussion on dualist grounds. >you have an experience of your existence that you can describe, because you're consciously aware of it. Certainly. But the way Nagel phrases it, "the experience" becomes akin to a "thing", and the absence of this "thing" in physical nature becomes an argument for the hypothesis that it's highly unlikely (maybe even impossible) to give a physicalist account of consciousness. That is what I disagree with. >There is, presumably, nothing it is like to be a Tetris game, because a Tetris game has no consciousness. What does saying this get you over just saying "a Tetris game has no consciousness"? >This is a standard, widely accepted characterization in consciousness studies. Even if you object to it, you should at least understand what it's saying. I understand what it is saying only insofar as it is simply another way to say "consciousness". But it is clearly taken to be more than just an alternative phrase we can use in lieu of the words "consciousness" or "subjective experience" to vaguely gesture in the direction of these ill-defined concepts we are all familiar with. I disagree that "there is something it is like to be bondarchuk" has greater descriptory power than "bondarchuk is conscious", therefore I don't think we should draw any conclusions regarding consciousness from this phrasing, especially the conclusion Nagel draws which is that consciousness is highly likely to be non-physical or at least that our current understanding of "the physical" is insufficient to ever approach the problem of consciousness (because we can never hope to give proper account of "the something that it is like to be bondarchuk"). >And if you do object to it, the onus is on you to provide a better description, which I note you've declined to do on multiple occasions now. Not really; my rejection of Nagel's argument can stand on its own regardless of whether I can offer an alternative argument.