3 ms·

> that there is no point of view, just local chemical storage of information. You have just restated the problem of consciousness, except as an assertion that

> that there is no point of view, just local chemical storage of information. You have just restated the problem of consciousness, except as an assertion that it doesn't exist. The problem of reductionism is that it doesn't stop; just as there aren't really points of view, there aren't really any chemicals, and there isn't really such a thing as (classical, let's say) information. All of these things are "just" emergent phenomena. The explanations which made "aether" and "miasma" obsolete are beautiful, unexpected at the time (in a trivial sense), and of course, not supernatural. I agree with you about the afterlife. However consider this: if the universe is infinite, isn't it likely that there will be copies of you which arise spontaneously, in all conceivable circumstances? The older you get, the less likely you are to be in a place or time that is causally connected to your birth, because most causal chains involve your death. (This is just a specific case of a Boltzmann Brain[1]) Of course, this sort of nonsense thought experiment runs afoul of the Measure Problem [2]. But this is precisely the kind of problem that I hope the explanation of consciousness would help to resolve. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_problem_(cosmology)

espadrine 10y ago
> You have just restated the problem of consciousness, except as an assertion that it doesn't exist. Things that don't exist are rarely problematic. But in fairness, I cannot guarantee that there is no consciousness, just as I cannot guarantee that gravity exists — it could be part of a simulation in which I was put since birth, and the real world could have very different laws of physics. Nothing new here, it is Occam's razor. > it doesn't stop; just as there aren't really points of view, there aren't really any chemicals, and there isn't really such a thing as (classical, let's say) information. There is such a thing as a point of view. I object to the notion of consciousness solely because of how it is used. Plants have points of view too; jellyfish do too, without the need for a brain. They react intelligently to their environment. Are those conscious? It is clearer to talk about "brains" and "points of view" than it is to talk about "consciousness". > The explanations which made "aether" and "miasma" obsolete are beautiful, unexpected at the time (in a trivial sense), and of course, not supernatural. I suppose that's up to each of us to judge. I don't find the idea that throughout my body, millions of tiny unicellular parasites are having a snack, particularly beautiful. Similarly, the idea that there is an invisible energy pulling everything apart always felt supernatural to me. > if the universe is infinite, isn't it likely that there will be copies of you The probability is above zero, but given that space is overwhelmingly empty, and given how much information defines my identity (including my average DNA, which is inherited from millions of years of evolution in extremely specific circumstances), it seems unlikely. If there is a copy of me in the universe, the most probable location would be on Earth, extremely close to where I sit.

espadrine 10y ago

> You have just restated the problem of consciousness, except as an assertion that it doesn't exist. Things that don't exist are rarely problematic. But in fairness, I cannot guarantee that there is no consciousness, just as I cannot guarantee that gravity exists — it could be part of a simulation in which I was put since birth, and the real world could have very different laws of physics. Nothing new here, it is Occam's razor. > it doesn't stop; just as there aren't really points of view, there aren't really any chemicals, and there isn't really such a thing as (classical, let's say) information. There is such a thing as a point of view. I object to the notion of consciousness solely because of how it is used. Plants have points of view too; jellyfish do too, without the need for a brain. They react intelligently to their environment. Are those conscious? It is clearer to talk about "brains" and "points of view" than it is to talk about "consciousness". > The explanations which made "aether" and "miasma" obsolete are beautiful, unexpected at the time (in a trivial sense), and of course, not supernatural. I suppose that's up to each of us to judge. I don't find the idea that throughout my body, millions of tiny unicellular parasites are having a snack, particularly beautiful. Similarly, the idea that there is an invisible energy pulling everything apart always felt supernatural to me. > if the universe is infinite, isn't it likely that there will be copies of you The probability is above zero, but given that space is overwhelmingly empty, and given how much information defines my identity (including my average DNA, which is inherited from millions of years of evolution in extremely specific circumstances), it seems unlikely. If there is a copy of me in the universe, the most probable location would be on Earth, extremely close to where I sit.