|
|
|
Aggregate solution to the problem of other minds 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
I have been thinking about how we might justify our beliefs about mental states other than our own.
I am struck by the contrast between the idea that our own consciousness is one and perhaps the only thing we can be certain of, and the frequently made observation that we have no access to the experience of any other conscious beings.
My proposed solution is based on the idea that, while I don't know that other conscious beings are conscious, they do.
Is it not therefore possible to aggregate the knowledge of all conscious beings?
That is, while we don't know on an individual basis that all conscious beings know that they are conscious, if we consider an aggregation of all conscious beings, we as a group do have this knowledge.
Suppose for the sake of simplicity we imagine that all life on earth has been exterminated except for myself, An Rogaire Dubh, and popular singing star Lady Ga Ga. Assuming that Lady Ga Ga is indeed conscious, if we then consider the pair of us as an aggregate, the aggregate can then claim to know that it is conscious. And this same principle can be extended to cover all conscious beings.
The solution to the problem of other minds is therefore simply to stop being so self-centred.
I look forward to your comments.
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/02/23 13:50 By An Rogaire Dubh.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Aggregate solution to the problem of other minds 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 4
|
|
Hello An Rogaire Dubh,
About the aggregate... what would happen if Lady Ga Ga is unconscious? We can't just assume everything to be conscious right? We must poke them or... gave them some other sensory excitement, as to elicit some responds.
_
In my opinion, the most minimum requirement for consciousness is; that thing must be moving and are able to respond to our interaction. This will indirectly imply that this thing is conscious of our presence, and are capable of making senses of our autonomous behaviour. -They will be able to differenciate us from another object, and another object from its background.
If we imagine how a millipede would see (millipede are blind), then millipede would just see what it's 'cane' would 'see'. It would just see... obstacle, food,... and... other 'one and one' stuff. I don't think millipede can differenciate between a watery sugar-cube and a liquid-sugar (it is chemically the same). Maybe millipede works like robot, walking... walking... eat, if have enemy= curl, if no enemy=... walk... walking.
So, some creature can't be conscious. Because it cannot statisfy the criteria that I suggested earlier. -It must be able to differenciate betweeon object like we do, and interact with other conscious object (like cat do).
_
That's just my opinion. What do you think? I think your Lady Ga Ga is funny...
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/02/23 15:05 By Msafwan.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Aggregate solution to the problem of other minds 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 10
|
|
I think the group would be disparately self-aware, not of itself as a group. —Even otherwise, though, I, not equal to the entire group, would still only be aware of the consciousness within myself versus the group being conscious of the plurality of its members.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
¡¿
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Aggregate solution to the problem of other minds 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Mfaswan wrote:
In my opinion, the most minimum requirement for consciousness is; that thing must be moving and are able to respond to our interaction.
Are you sure these aren't your criteria for who you would go out on a date with?
About the aggregate... what would happen if Lady Ga Ga is unconscious? We can't just assume everything to be conscious right? We must poke them or... gave them some other sensory excitement, as to elicit some responds.
Really, this is meant to be a serious philosophical discussion, not an opportunity for you to fantasise about poking Lady Ga Ga.
So, some creature can't be conscious. Because it cannot statisfy the criteria that I suggested earlier. -It must be able to differenciate betweeon object like we do, and interact with other conscious object (like cat do).
Well that's ok, my theory doesn't relate to unconscious creatures.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Aggregate solution to the problem of other minds 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
<strong>Szavieur wrote:</strong>
I think the group would be disparately self-aware, not of itself as a group. —Even otherwise, though, I, not equal to the entire group, would still only be aware of the consciousness within myself versus the group being conscious of the plurality of its members.
This is the old way of thinking though Szavieur, where we make a big deal about individual knowledge, and ignore what I am calling aggregated knowledge. I'm not claiming that the group would be disparately self-aware, in fact I'm not talking about anybody being self-aware, I'm only talking about the members of the group being conscious, and thereby indubitably knowing that they are conscious.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/02/24 08:27 By An Rogaire Dubh.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Aggregate solution to the problem of other minds 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
An Rogaire Dubh wrote: I have been thinking about how we might justify our beliefs about mental states other than our own. ... My proposed solution is based on the idea that, while I don't know that other conscious beings are conscious, they do.
Is it not therefore possible to aggregate the knowledge of all conscious beings? ... Assuming that Lady Ga Ga is indeed conscious, if we then consider the pair of us as an aggregate, the aggregate can then claim to know that it is conscious. And this same principle can be extended to cover all conscious beings. I am conviced that some aggregates think, but not that all aggregates think. So the problem reduces to being certain that the aggregate An Rogaire Dubh/Lady Ga Ga is a thinking aggregate. How would it/they go about being certain?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
