Earlier quoted context omitted.
It certainly does because in this case there is no “you”
And yet here you are reading that comment, writing this one... And those experiences are real.
Says who?
Existing in an un-simulated reality
91–94 of 94 posts
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know that when you touch a chair that that sensation is real?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia[1] - is what you are now describing mixed with a little bit of Maxwell's Demon[2] - something is intercepting between you and a true experience. Real, in the way I believe you are trying to express, is a complicated topic. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia 2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon
I'm nit picking here, but I think you meant Cartesian demon?
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, not part of fundamental physics. Every atom in your brain behaves according to the laws of particle physics, and somehow consciousness emerges out of that. Our theories of neuroscience aren't developed enough to explain it yet, but there isn't any reason to believe that there is something magical or non-physical going on.
> consciousness is an emergent phenomenon That's a theory that has yet to be tested, not a certainty. > Every atom in your brain behaves according to the laws of particle physics... These are assumptions. They're very plausible and useful ones. They may turn out to be absolutely correct, but it's still worth noting that they are theories. "Every atom behaves..." so far, so good, yes it does. "...according to the laws…
I don't think "article of faith" is the right phrase. For every possible hypothesis, we attach a prior probability and then we update those probabilities when new evidence comes in. If accepting a given hypothesis would require changing a lot of other hypotheses that we have high confidence in, then we should attach a low prior probability to it. I don't have to take it on faith that a low probability hypothesis is false; the default position is to assume that it is false until compelling evidence to the contrary appears.
For example, I can hypothesize that a fifth fundamental force is needed to explain consciousness, but then I need to modify the standard model of particle physics to account for new interactions. I have a high confidence that the standard model is correct in the domains relevant to the evolution of life on Earth, namely chemistry and biology. So my default assumption is that we don't need to introduce new laws of physics to explain consciousness.
>Is a (functional) brain both necessary and sufficient for consciousness to "emerge"?
I think you misread my post as implying that a brain is required for consciousness. Our baseline for talking about consciousness is consciousness in humans, and all of the medical evidence suggests that human consciousness is associated with brain activity. But I see no reason to believe that something made out of silicon or other non-organic materials couldn't be conscious if it implemented the same kind of processes that we find in the brain.
Re: Existing in an un-simulated reality
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet here you are reading that comment, writing this one... And those experiences are real.
Says who?
You, me, and anybody else reading the comments.
If you want to disagree on the metaphysics or whatever go ahead, but this is already proving to be a huge waste of time and I'm not particularly interested.