Remix.run Logo
rcxdude 5 days ago

I don't think this matches which most people's definition of consciousness. The ability to decide rarely enters into such conversations.

ars 5 days ago | parent [-]

If you can't do anything with your self awareness it's equivalent to not having it.

What's the distinction between knowing I exist, but all my actions are pre-programmed vs not knowing I exist? You're essentially describing a detached observer, who watches their own body do stuff without influencing it.

The whole point of being conscious is being aware of yourself, and then using that awareness to direct your actions.

I had no idea people even had another definition, I can't figure out how else you could even define it.

HarHarVeryFunny 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The whole point of being conscious is being aware of yourself, and then using that awareness to direct your actions.

Well,

1) You are making the massive, and quite likely incorrect, assumption that consciousness evolved by itself for a purpose - that it does have a "point". It may well be that consciousness - ability to self-observe - is just a natural side effect of having a capable bird- or mammal-like brain, and talking about the "point" of consciousness therefore makes no sense. It'd be like asking what is the functional point of a saucepan making a noise when you hit it.

2) Notwithstanding 1), being self-aware (having cognitive access to your internal thoughts) does have a value, in that it allows your brain to then utilize it's cognitive abilities to make better decisions ("should I walk across that frozen pond, or maybe better not?"), but this bringing-to-bear of learned experience to make better decisions is still a 100% mechanical process. Your brain is making a "decision" (i.e. predicting a motor cortex output that may make you move or do something), but this isn't "free will" - it's just the survival benefit of a brain evolved to predict. You as an organism in the environment may be seen by an outside observer to be making smart "decisions", but these decisions aren't some mystical "free will" but rather just a highly evolved organism making good use of past experience to survive.

HarHarVeryFunny 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Consciousness and free will are two different things. Free will is an illusion - basic physics should tell you that the molecules in your head can no better bend the laws of physics than the molecules in a brick.

Our brains are all about prediction - ability to predict (based on past experience) what will happen in the future (e.g. if I go to X I will find water) which is a massive evolutionary advantage over just reacting to the present like an insect or perhaps a fish.

Consciousness either evolved for a reason, or comes for free with any brain-like cognitive architecture. It's based on the brain having connections giving it access to its internal states (thereby giving us the ability to self-observe), not just sensory inputs informing it about the external world. The evolutionary value of consciousness would be to be able to better predict based on the brain having access to its internal states, but as noted it may "come for free" with any kind of bird or mammal like brain - hard to imagine a brain that somehow does NOT have access to it's own internal states, and would therefore NOT be able to process/predict those using it's cognitive apparatus (lacking in something like an LLM) just as it does external sensory inputs.

Of course consciousness (ability of the brain to self-observe) is responsible for the illusion of having free will, since the brain naturally correlates it's internal pre-action planning ("I'm choosing between A or B ..." etc) with any subsequent action, but that internal planning/choice is of course all a function of brain wiring, not some mystical "free will" coming in and bending the laws of physics.

You and your dog both are conscious and both experience the illusion of free will.