4 ms·
That for some reason disregard Ockham's wise words...
by narag 7y ago
That for some reason disregard Ockham's wise words...
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 7y ago_shrug_ I have no skin in the game, so to speak, but I can almost imagine a scenario where it might be simpler to accept that consciousness is a physical property of matter than to accept that consciousness doesn’t exist.
- narag 7y agoIIRC the enuntiation of famous Razor, you must not introduce extra entities in a gratuitous and unnecessary way. And this is exactly what I find extrange: we don't know enough about how natural minds work yet, computers are still far from approximating the minds of simplest organism and yet there's people that says it's an impossible task. Come on! Observe first, start small, see where problems arise. What's the point in making up unknown physics for a problem that we don't have yet?
- 9wzYQbTYsAIc 7y agohttps://neurosphere.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/physical-consciousness/ https://neurosphere.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/physical-consci...
- narag 7y agoMy opinion was formed after reading more like that and realizing that it's a lot of circular reasoning: cursory observation of reality, assigning labels and, when labels doesn't fit reality, blaming reality instead of their own ability to use labels.
- vekker 7y agoHow does it disregard Occam's Razor? To me it's more mystical to invoke an outside, actual material reality existing, separate from our observer perspective. How can it not be the same?
- narag 7y agoProposing a new unknown entities to explain a problem that we're not sure even exists does indeed disregard it.