There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

zero_spelled_with_an_ecks ,

It’s not even the same day to day for me.

Gerudo ,

I’m about to go down some rabbit hole about this aren’t I? I had no idea some people don’t have these abilities.

intensely_human ,

No. I’m conscious in a super duper way that ya’ll just can’t match.

astrsk ,
@astrsk@fedia.io avatar

20 seconds in and I already can’t relate, can’t see things when I close my eyes.

ProdigalFrog OP ,

A few seconds later, he discusses an interesting situation where a scientist in the 1800’s sent out a questionnaire to some fellow scientists about picturing things in their mind. one of the responding scientists was wildly confused why he was discussing picturing things in the mind’s eye as if people could actually visually see something, and how he could be unaware that it was just a simple turn of phrase, prompting the discovery of Aphantasia! :D

astrsk ,
@astrsk@fedia.io avatar

Yeah! Very cool that he got there, my attention was just interrupted by not really connecting with what he was saying, but I’m glad I continued watching. I’m very much locked, relating to his discussion of no inner monologue.

ProdigalFrog OP ,

Aww, ye! Glad you’re enjoying it ^^

givesomefucks ,

Not watching the video, but obviously not.

There is a huge amount of human variation, but one of the big ones is some people don’t have an internal monologue and some people lack the ability to visualize things in their mind.

Either one of those drastically changes what we think of as a consciousness.

Hell, some of the split brain subjects are probably still alive. Some of them had two distinct consciousnesses emerge due to their hemispheres no longer being able to communicate. That’s definitely unique now that we’re not cauterizing corpus callosums anymore.

SynonymousStoat ,

Pretty strong case of Aphantasia here, it never even occurred to me that people actually saw things in their minds eye and thought it was more a metaphor or something. I do, however, have a very talkative internal monologue. I have a friend who has no internal monologue paired with Aphantasia, I always enjoy talking with them about their experience and how it differs from my own.

It’s really interesting to me how people’s internal experience can differ and how we can never truly know what these different experiences are like.

PlantJam ,

I think my lack of internal monologue and inability to visualize is why I’ve never been able to get into reading. I’m a little jealous when I hear people describe books as “like watching a movie in your mind”.

SynonymousStoat ,

I came to the same conclusion about my usual disinterest in books stemming from me having Aphantasia. The only kinds of books I’ve been able to consistently get through are very comedic in their writing style (e.g. Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett, Dennis E. Taylor, etc.). I think the focus on humor instead of visualizing the story and its world is what helps me when it comes to reading books.

finickydesert ,
@finickydesert@lemmy.ml avatar

Nope, just relatively. Though how do you want to define consciousness could change my nope to a yes. It’s all about the definition.

stembolts ,

Nope, just relatively. Though how do you want to define consciousness could change my nope to a yes. It’s all about the definition.

All I can see when I read this comment is a plaque to blind confidence. Don’t take it the wrong way, I don’t mean it as a wholly a bad thing… maybe 90% bad, 10% admiration. Confidence is powerful, but it works best when paired with other traits.

…but back to the thread, unless you’re involved in this topic at an academic level, can you explain the reasoning behind the confidence you appear to have in your perspective?

givesomefucks ,

Bruh. We literally don’t even know what consciousness is.

Probably the smartest living human has spent decades looking into it as a passion project after he and Hawking completed Einsteins physics.

But dude is a realist, he’s 90 years old and long ago accepted he won’t live to hear the answer.

We don’t know how anesthesia works either, so he looked into that and the best he got was it interrupts a quantom wave collapse in our brains, but anesthesia shuts us down when some of those quantom waves have stopped collapsing, but not enough to make the math work out for it to be the cause.

So maybe Roger Penrose just wasted his retirement on this passion project?

In all likelihood we won’t know for decades, and even then it doesn’t really answer the question.

To give you some idea how slowly this shit moves, Penrose just won the 2020 Novel in Physics for shit he theorized in 1964…

www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/…/facts/

He wrote books on it in the 80s/90s, so maybe in another couple decades someone will verify this theory too?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Mind

And again, this is probably the smartest living human, has spent decades looking into it, and his result was “I dunno, maybe look at this?”

So if anyone ever tries to tell you that anyone knows what consciousness is. You know they’re talking out of their ass.

As long as capitalism drives science, we’ll never know. Because there’s no money in finding it out, and we’re at the point of looking at freaking quantum wave collapse inside of neurons, it’s not exactly something that’s easy or cheap to investigate.

icosahedron ,

i’d agree that we don’t really understand consciousness. i’d argue it’s more an issue of defining consciousness and what that encompasses than knowing its biological background. if we knew what to look for, we’d find it. also anesthesia isn’t really a problem at all. in fact, we know exactly how general anesthesia works

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908224/

and Penroses’s Orch OR theory was never meant to explain anesthesia. it’s a more general theory concerning the overall existence of consciousness in the first place. however, anesthesia does relate to the theory, in that it could play a role in proving it (i think? not a primary source but it’s where i found that info)

besides that, Orch OR isn’t exactly a great model in the first place, or at least from a neurological standpoint. even among theories of consciousness, Orch OR is particularly controversial and not widely accepted. i’m no expert and i could be misunderstanding, so please correct me if i’m missing something that would indicate Orch OR is considered even remotely plausible compared to other consciousness theories. this paper certainly had some things to say about it in the context of the validity of theories of consciousness (see V.1 class I).

other theories seem more promising. global workspace theory seems particularly well supported by neurology. its criticisms mainly focus on how GWT fails to truly explain the nature of consciousness. but is that an issue any theory can resolve? again, the problem lies in the definition of consciousness.

then we have integrated information theory. it’s a more mathematical model that aims to quantify the human experience. but you know what? it’s also controversial and highly debated, to the point that it’s been called pseudoscientific because it implies a degree of panpsychism. it’s clearly not a perfect theory.

point is, you’re right. we don’t really get consciousness. we have some wild guesses out there, and penrose’s theory is certainly one of them. genius as penrose is, Orch OR isn’t empirically testable. we don’t know, and maybe can’t know - which is precisely why neuroscience searches elsewhere

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •