81–90 of 244 posts
If this is the measure of outlandishness, it’s super outlandish. Unless you were indoctrinated starting at a young age of course. In any event, to me it’s a dismissing argument.
The arguments to fine-tuning are utterly remedial. I can't believe that no one in their orbit ever brought up the anthropic principle [1]. We are not randomly distributed over possible universes; we are embedded in a universe that is by definition capable of supporting our existence (and indeed giving rise to it). It doesn't matter how stupidly improbable it is. Observer effect is off the charts! Second, in evolution…
"[The atrophic principle] tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts." - Roger Penrose
Isn't the anthropic principle just the most recent god-of-the-gaps argument - i.e. a de facto mystery explanation of things we can't otherwise explain...?
I suppose that (to me) if or when the multi-verse theory becomes a falsifiable theory AND is empirically validated, then awesome we have the explanation pre-baked (the anthropic principle).
But until then, there doesn't seem to be grounds to say it's 'remedial'.
But curious for your thoughts, it's not my area of expertise beyond a layman's interest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a useful definition of "consciousness" that is empirically testable with some sort of instrument such that you can point it at a squid and say "yep, that one has consciousness!" ? I ask because I've never heard such a definition nor has anyone actually ever told me what the instrument is that detects this. Until then, I figure there's no such thing as consciousness... it's just what superstitious monkeys say…
In my mind, this is part of the mysticism of the movement. If you define a word widely enough, then anything can fit. I hate to invoke this, but this often feels like a Motte & Bailey argument. If you want to call "God" the energy which started the big bang, you're sort of smuggling personification into something which really bears zero resemblance to traditional religious ideas. And so it is with consciousness. If w…
If the 'universe' is conscious, every cell in your body is as well... and well... they are alive - and they do make 'decisions' that end up keeping (royal)us alive that look intelligent from an outside perspective... which is about the same perspective a large (zero-g evolved) kaiju would have of us {small pieces of a whole that do seemingly intelligent things to benefit the group-entity}...
if we don't consider what we are made of as conscious material - from where does consciousness arise from? ...and until we have a clear answer, maybe it's a sliding scale and everything is some degree of 'awareness'?
[flagged]
The simplest explanation of consciousness is that its a tool to build an abstract world model including fellow humans turned back on self. You cant drive the entire network because that is an interactable problem so you model it like a fellow human and either feed broad input to it or sanctify decisions already made as part of the theory of "I" I dont think gpt4 individual cells nor the algorithm can be said to have…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The simplest explanation of consciousness is that its a tool to build an abstract world model including fellow humans turned back on self. You cant drive the entire network because that is an interactable problem so you model it like a fellow human and either feed broad input to it or sanctify decisions already made as part of the theory of "I" I dont think gpt4 individual cells nor the algorithm can be said to have…
In your book, what would it take for something other than a human or animal to demonstrate consciousness?
At first blush chatGPT seems conscious for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a useful definition of "consciousness" that is empirically testable with some sort of instrument such that you can point it at a squid and say "yep, that one has consciousness!" ? I ask because I've never heard such a definition nor has anyone actually ever told me what the instrument is that detects this. Until then, I figure there's no such thing as consciousness... it's just what superstitious monkeys say…
In my mind, this is part of the mysticism of the movement. If you define a word widely enough, then anything can fit. I hate to invoke this, but this often feels like a Motte & Bailey argument. If you want to call "God" the energy which started the big bang, you're sort of smuggling personification into something which really bears zero resemblance to traditional religious ideas. And so it is with consciousness. If w…
I believe the typical (mis)understanding proceeds like so: "I am conscious. I not only know things, but I have a sensation of knowing them. This (computer/animal) reacts to things in such a way that it demonstrably knows them in some sense, but it has no sensation of knowing them. Now what is this wonderful thing that distinguishes me from it? How did it come to be? What purpose does it serve?"
One purpose the concept of consciousness serves is that it gives a special ethical status to its possessor. The conscious being needs to care about other conscious beings but can treat those beings without consciousness as tools or resources.
The most fundamental argument for panpsychism is that it obeys Occam's razor FAR better than the "emergent animate matter" hypothesis. Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens, so from the perspective of Occam's razor we would actually need to explain why it DIDN'T happen for non-animal matter. Additionally, if we go with the emergence hypothesis, we…
> Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens... Do we know this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Panpsychism requires that the universe updates its state by conscious choice, which we already know happens... Do we know this?
You chose to type a reply to me right? I guess you could assume that you are compelled and your free will is an illusion, but honestly that view is shit.