Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something
There has been research and measurement into consciousness, there are machines that scan the brain, there are published findings about changes observed in the nervous system for various changes in consciousness.
Until you can identify what part of consciousness can’t be measured, how can you say consciousness can’t be measured?
As I literally previously said: self-awereness
This is like asking “Who delivers the postman’s mail?”, it may seem like a profound question, but it’s very simple.
People can be aware of millions of things, when it comes to understanding themselves they can model it in the brain with neurons the same way they would think about or model the concept of another creature they saw. Just because they are thinking about themselves doesn’t make it suddenly unique and mysterious.
You may as well be asking how someone could be aware of any random thing in their life. The postman delivers his own mail, nothing complex or enigmatic about it.
If you mean how does a person have conscious awareness of their own thoughts, that’s like treating computers as a mystery: How can my PC’s software display hardware sensory data and react to it? How can my PC display and reason about the code underlying it?
Of course, people don’t get the same feeling of mystery about software that can have this “self-awareness” because the real motivation for these ideas about humans lies in a desire for humans to be special and unique.
My original point still stands: You can make objective statements about things we can’t measure. Also you can’t measure self-awareness.
Sure, but you should have a reason ito believe it exists to begin with. Otherwise your making statements about nothing.
There have been tests of self-awareness. Ranging from seeing if a species will try to get something off of itself viewable only through a mirror (proving some sense of self), to measuring brain changes when someone thinks about something.
I have a feeling you mean something else besides “awareness of ones self” when you say self-awareness, though. Awareness is within our understanding, and pointing that inwards doesn’t raise any new mysteries.
Living being, just like machines, can have information related from internals, and either one can process that information.
No, that’s exactly what I mean by self-awareness and yes we have done tests on it but there is no conclusive way to show and measure it currently. Yes I can make objective statements on that subject which was my point like 20 comments back.