Say, let’s admit consciousness is the result of a physical process.
Then say this process only goes “forward” when our time coordinate increases. Just like an egg gets cooked when it’s temperature coordinate increases, but it doesn’t get more or less cooked when it’s temperature coordinate decreases.
This would mean that going back in time doesn’t result in any perceptible change, since your consciousness hasn’t evolved from it’s “former” state.
Thus making it possible for us to be travelling through plenty of dimensions in varied directions, only ever experiencing the brief times when you happen to be moving in increasing time. Or whatever combination of movement along varied dimensions makes it possible for you to be conscious.
TLDR: i need to take shorter showers
That depends how you define your terms, but under most definitions I don’t think that this is always going to be the case
I’m not taking about life, I’m talking about consciousness which is a separate topic
Why?
We can measure it indirectly (eg by people telling us about their conscious experiences) which is good enough for empirical study
People explaining their own consciousness is really not good enough. Simple llm ai systems can do that. I’m pretty sure that dogs are conscience, but we can never get their perspective. You cannot know anyone other than yourself is conscious.
There is a lot of data that is out of reach (such as the experience of a dog) but we can generalize from the data we do have access to and see if we can pick up any meaningful patterns and then generalize from there. That’s how all science is done
Science is done by observing, theorizing, predicting and then testing. We cannot test anything on consciousness.
How do we know that certain wavelengths of light produce certain visual experiences (the colour red, green etc)? How do we know that electrical stimulation to certain parts of the brain can cause certain experiences (such as the hallucination of sounds or smells etc.)? That’s because we test on consciousness indirectly all the time, through first-person reports. So to say that we cannot test any hypothesis related to consciousness is demonstrably false.
Not really. We know that a human can detect those frequencies and output information related to them. Like any transducer. Like any computer. We cannot know what the experience is. The best we can do is describe our own experience, and compare the description to that which other people give, but that’s not really better evidence than what we’d get from a current llm ai which can do the same. It’s logical to assume other people have conscious, but we cannot test it empirically.
This is not unique to the science of consciousness. Extreme scepticism can kill any science from the get-go. Sure, we can’t prove that other beings are conscious. But we also can’t prove that the external world exists, either. Does that mean we’re doing to stop doing physics? No, because some forms of extreme scepticism are simply unreasonable. If we wait around for solutions to these radical sceptical scenarios then we’re never going to get anywhere.
I think it is unique. Consciousness of anyone but yourself is immediately an unknowable thing. There are no related effects we can measure. There is nothing we can predict based on it. You can do pseudo science with it and that could have great value, but it will always fall apart under proper scientific method. Other sciences require assumptions, like that logic holds, math is consistent, the world exists etc. and so they are tested under that caveat implicitly. You can also make an assumption that consciousness exists in some cases - but it doesn’t lead anywhere. Like arguing whether a computer can be conscious leads back exactly and only to your original assumptions and so they add no value.
Are you suggesting that consciousness is the only science that has to contend with extreme skeptical scenarios?