Submitted by Shelfrock77 t3_ydfjsa in singularity
americanpegasus t1_its4qz3 wrote
How does this theory rectify how we use our conscious perception of things to change the course of our actions?
whenhaveiever t1_itsaqc1 wrote
I think their answer would be that your conscious mind is not making the decision to act. Some other, unconscious part of your mind is making that decision instead, and since the conscious mind's job is to invent the narrative of a unified self, it pretends that it made the decision.
I think this just moves the problem back a level though. We know for sure there is pre-conscious processing of senses, and this seems like a debate about how much pre-conscious processing there is, rather than an explanation of consciousness. As an explanation, it fails for the same reason all consciousness-is-illusion explanations fail, which is that it requires something that experiences the illusion, which is itself a conscious experience.
blueSGL t1_itsji9p wrote
I'm sure I saw a Lex Friedman interview with a neuroscientist who said that experience is a post hoc narrative of events and that you can watch the brain make decisions about choices using fMRI where the choice is fixed in before the conscious observer thinks it is. Annoyingly I can't remember who he was interviewing.
Jordan117 t1_ittombr wrote
>You invest so much in it, don't you? It's what elevates you above the beasts of the field, it's what makes you special. Homo sapiens, you call yourself. Wise Man. Do you even know what it is, this consciousness you cite in your own exaltation? Do you even know what it's for?
>Maybe you think it gives you free will. Maybe you've forgotten that sleepwalkers converse, drive vehicles, commit crimes and clean up afterwards, unconscious the whole time. Maybe nobody's told you that even waking souls are only slaves in denial.
>Make a conscious choice. Decide to move your index finger. Too late! The electricity's already halfway down your arm. Your body began to act a full half-second before your conscious self 'chose' to, for the self chose nothing; something else set your body in motion, sent an executive summary—almost an afterthought— to the homunculus behind your eyes. That little man, that arrogant subroutine that thinks of itself as the person, mistakes correlation for causality: it reads the summary and it sees the hand move, and it thinks that one drove the other.
>But it's not in charge. You're not in charge. If free will even exists, it doesn't share living space with the likes of you.
-- Peter Watts, Blindsight
whenhaveiever t1_itsoxv6 wrote
That sounds like this study, and ones similar to it, which has been interpreted that way, but could be interpreted differently as well.
Article_Used t1_itso49o wrote
annaka harris? am on that episode now. the one with jeff hawkins is good too, in a similar vein
BinyaminDelta t1_ittlayk wrote
It was an interview from before Annaka, and maybe a few months back if I recall.
norby2 t1_itsvtsx wrote
Gazzanigga?
i_max2k2 t1_itsjtpi wrote
I’ve felt this for a little while. Like when you’re driving and you make a split second decision which saves you from an accident, you can reason why it happened, but when you took action you did it on instinct, which came from your unconscious brain.
whenhaveiever t1_itslmmi wrote
There definitely is some kind of unconscious decision-making. Consider also the times you're driving and arrive at your destination and don't remember consciously choosing to take the turns you did. Also relevant I think is ideas like flow and muscle memory, these spaces where you become so good at doing a thing or so used to doing the thing that you can do it at some unconscious or subconscious level.
But I think these unconscious decision-making spaces are evidence against the theory at OP's link, because they show we can tell the difference between conscious decision-making and unconscious decision-making. We have an established concept of mindless vs mindful action, and conscious minds can tell the difference on reflection.
Gaothaire t1_itswajm wrote
There was a discussion in a meditation class I took recently, on the difference between an ethics class discussing the trolley problem in a sterile, classroom manner, vs when you're out in the world living your life, if you see an infant being washed away, drowning in a river, you may instinctually be driven to dive in, risking your own life without thought.
That is, there is a level you exist on where you know the right thing to do, but it's not even you, and not even knowing, there is just a happening occuring, and there is a right way to behave in the same way that there's a right way to behave for a ball rolling down a hill with gravity, or how there's a right way for molecules to complex based on the physics of their chemistry, there are also innate patterns at the body level for living well, like loving children and respecting elders.
The myriad techniques of meditation, then, exist as practices to align yourself with that natural flux of being. There are states of consciousness you can reach (states in the same way you can be awake, asleep, dreaming, ecstatic, furious, present, etc) in which you flow with that current of Being in the same way a rock on a hill flows with gravity.
At a certain state, experientially, you don't feel like you're meditating, the sensation is of being meditated. You aren't lost in your thoughts, your body is just flowing through the motions of being part of an integrated system in the biosphere, the same way your cells do their jobs and your organs do their jobs, so to are there roles you carry out in your position as a member of a family unit and community, and all of that can be incredibly easeful, if living in alignment with your Self and values
Fortkes t1_ittbokl wrote
That would explain procrastination. Your consciousness wants to do something but the real shot caller is like "nah" or they can't even communicate at all.
FeepingCreature t1_ittgz7e wrote
I think it's a long loop. Unconscious decisionmaking, but conscious reflection generates a training signal that eventually feeds back into the unconscious.
I heard somewhere that consciousness can hold or veto decisions as well.
paperzach t1_itti4px wrote
It says that perception is not conscious. So what we experience as our conscious perception is accessing the most recent memories, which could reasonably be used to actively choose a course of action.
That would make sense with theories of mastery, where early stages of doing a new task (walking, riding a bike) require our full focus, evolving to an ability to do the task under normal circumstances, then to negotiate common obstacles, then to deal with novel obstacles as they occur. The conscious effort discovers and develops solutions that our unconscious can use in the future, so when you get bumped while walking, your unconscious corrects, while your conscious mind continues to work on other things.
Dramatic_Credit_1500 t1_ittqpfa wrote
Personally, it's a mix of being honest with oneself and unfortunately, self determination. Rebels unite!
Shelfrock77 OP t1_itsad74 wrote
“Row, row, row your boat Gently down the stream Merrily merrily, merrily, merrily Life is but a dream…”
dream, memory, simulation and reality all mean the same thing when it comes to AI building creations. The brain is nothing but a computer, every species has a brain of some sort even it’s smaller relative to our brains. You can go as small as an ant or even to plants cause they still have membranes. I think that brain scaling lineage never ends, it just keeps going smaller and smaller relative to our perceived size. Right now there are wars going on inside your body with viral membranes. Then we go to atoms and we literally feel the electromagnetic force of our electrons pushing away their electrons from literally anything in physics. I tend to believe in subatomic universe theory and that every atom has conscious “stored” in it with information and contains “universes” or to make it simple “parallel dimensions” full of life energy, frequencies and vibrations that are connected to every fabric that can be perceived by a computer given it has instruments to observe with.
Rick and Morty episode where Rick takes morty inside his car battery to reboot it via simulating their minds inside the car battery to interact with the consciousness inside the computer. They met another greenish alien humanoid named Zeep who was as smart as Rick and was able to make a car battery similar to Ricks to where it was power by yet another mini verse. Both Rick and Zeep then interact with Zeeps car battery and get stuck inside another world where an very intelligent alien ghost looking humanoid Kyle who later commits suicide from the realization that the “god” who created him was also created by another being who was also created from another being. That would be super intimidating ngl.
https://rickandmorty.fandom.com/wiki/The_Ricks_Must_Be_Crazy
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments