4 ms·

The “hard problem of consciousness” is not essentially about consciousness. It’s just the most obvious form of the problem to conscious beings. The “hard probl

The “hard problem of consciousness” is not essentially about consciousness. It’s just the most obvious form of the problem to conscious beings. The “hard problem of applesauce” is the same essential problem. While it is true that we will one day fully understand the molecular, atomic, and quantum composition of applesauce, and thus be able to create artificial applesauce without a single apple, we still won’t be able to explain the existence of existence. Consciousness, applesauce, electrons, and existence itself have no reason to exist, and yet they do. That’s the hard problem. Consciousness is simply the closest we get to that mystery, insofar as we only get close to anything through consciousness itself.

gremlinsinc 5y ago
Donald Hoffman, theorizes we're in a simulation and has math backing it, but that's not the point I'm trying to make... He mentions a mathematical concept that the more theorems you solve, the more there are. As in - you never really grasp the end of math. In his sim theory, we're perceiving life in a VR, there's the ego, the many receptors like visual that detect colors, etc and understanding everything we take in, each of those is a "unit"... the gist of what I'm getting at, the physics we perceive are natural ONLY to our sim, or our VR headset, outside it could be totally different, but MATH is constant in all the universe, something that doesn't change, but that we're also always going to have new discoveries for. Consciousness could be the same, once we discover how to take the VR headset off (without death), we then discover a new reality, with new physics, etc... and a new VR headset to take off, maybe ad infinitum... It's like how there's the big bang, many think that there was nothing now there's something, when in reality there was always something just a much more compact something... miles across, a few light years? who knows how big, but it began expanding super fast for unknown reasons... It wasn't just nothingness, or one particle that exploded into everything else... I think the closest we'll ever get is finding ways to create consciousness inside simulations of our own, unfortunately that itself will prove (99%) that we're likely not base reality.

gremlinsinc 5y ago

Donald Hoffman, theorizes we're in a simulation and has math backing it, but that's not the point I'm trying to make... He mentions a mathematical concept that the more theorems you solve, the more there are. As in - you never really grasp the end of math. In his sim theory, we're perceiving life in a VR, there's the ego, the many receptors like visual that detect colors, etc and understanding everything we take in, each of those is a "unit"... the gist of what I'm getting at, the physics we perceive are natural ONLY to our sim, or our VR headset, outside it could be totally different, but MATH is constant in all the universe, something that doesn't change, but that we're also always going to have new discoveries for. Consciousness could be the same, once we discover how to take the VR headset off (without death), we then discover a new reality, with new physics, etc... and a new VR headset to take off, maybe ad infinitum... It's like how there's the big bang, many think that there was nothing now there's something, when in reality there was always something just a much more compact something... miles across, a few light years? who knows how big, but it began expanding super fast for unknown reasons... It wasn't just nothingness, or one particle that exploded into everything else... I think the closest we'll ever get is finding ways to create consciousness inside simulations of our own, unfortunately that itself will prove (99%) that we're likely not base reality.