• 0 Posts
  • 32 Comments
Joined 3 days ago
cake
Cake day: February 4th, 2026

help-circle


  • The way you’re discussing ‘models’ seems to assume two points: (1) that all useful models will be physical models, and (2) that we have models that work in this context. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

    For the first point, arguably the most popular model of consciousness we have at the moment is Integrated Information Theory (IIT). IIT is explicitly a panpsychist theory (all matter has some non-zero quantity of consciousness). This lends itself very well to non-physicalist interpretations (where consciousness is a fundamental constituent of the universe, irreducible to matter).

    For the second point, all this discussion of models is largely besides the point. Because there is currently no model of conscious experience that works. No theory is widely accepted. And the theories that were once popular (global workspace theory and even IIT) seem to not the supported by evidence (proponents of these theories have tried to modify them to fit the data, but you can only do that so many times before things start to looks sketchy). So whether we use a model or not, it’s not really relevant to this discussion, because we currently have no scientific models of consciousness that work.






  • How do we know the information they make public isn’t cherry picked to make them look good? It takes a lot of trust in the Chinese government take the cases they do publicize at face value and assume that nothing else is going on, because without the total numbers it’s impossible to know how many cases are being omitted.

    I don’t think I could bring myself up to that level of trust. It’s not even anything against the Chinese government in particular; I don’t know if I’d trust any government to that degree.