4 ms·

I've started to go in the opposite direction of the usual physical approach. At some point, any experiment or argument or fact is for the digestion of some cons

I've started to go in the opposite direction of the usual physical approach. At some point, any experiment or argument or fact is for the digestion of some conscious entity. So what happens when we assume consciousness as the baseline ontological object. There's you, me, and however many bystanders that can also participate in the conversation. Starting with a domain of discussion of just the person(s) making the text, the person(s) reading the text, and the text itself, can a self consistent "reality" be bootstrapped from first principles? What happens when we stop trying to define consciousness from within our shared reality and instead treat conscious entities as axiomatic and try to define reality in relation to them? 1. If you are having this conversation with me then you are a consciousness and I am a consciousness and that's as good a definition of consciousness as we are ever going to get. 2. Consciousness thus defined exists entirely within this conversational medium. 3. The basic objects of the domain of discussion are the people having this discussion ("you", "me" et al), and the conversational text / speech acts themselves ("this"). 4. The only relations between objects in the domain which exists a priori are "like"/"agrees with" and "dislike"/"disagrees with". Either I like you or I dislike you. Until further constructs are defined there's not much more we can say. 5. At least one of us would like for something to be. For if you are perfectly content with how things are and so am I, then why are we talking? 6. Reality is shared consensus. Whatever we agree is real and if anyone disagrees we'll argue/fight them until either they agree with us or us with them. Starting from these as axioms, what can we construct?

tsimionescu 4y ago
> Starting from these as axioms, what can we construct? Nothing, unless there is also a physical world which actually exists independent of any of the participants' will.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  This text is in the physical world. This statement exists on your screen independent of my will. It may exist in the first place because of my will, but its continued existence before you right now is independent of me. We have a shared reality in the form of this very text based medium.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Sure, the physical world exists independent of our will and communication, so this text (and all the electric fields that traveled between our machines over vast distances) exist regardless of our will or communication. But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently from any other agent. I know for sure I exist in some sense, I believe very strongly that the physical world exists, and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine. In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists than I am of the fact that your subjective experience exists. If I found out the comment I am responding to was in fact GPT-3 output, I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me. So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than a world of conscious discussion; and exploring the physical world in the aspects we ourselves can observe about it alone is a much more convincing argument than trying to discuss it with other conscious agents. It's much easier to convince someone else that I can pass through walls than it is for me to actually pass through a wall.
    - IIAOPSW 4y ago
      >But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently >In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists >So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than Phrasing all of these in terms of what you believe and what you are convinced/certain of, instead of in terms of what absolutely is, makes my point for me. You didn't even realize you were talking in terms of you getting me to agree over what to believe rather than some objective nature of things indifferent to my opinion. That's how deep seated this is in the way brains and consciousness work. >I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me. You even phrased the discussion of your own sensory perception in terms of messages. In this case messages from your own senses. And you personified them too, treating them as conscious enough to lie to you. >I know for sure I exist in some sense... and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine. You're already agreeing with my axioms. I know I exist. No matter what argument I am making, it must exist in words and there must be a "you" I am trying to convince (even when I'm trying to convince myself). It is impossible to form an argument which rejects these axiomatic truths, for the moment you try you've already used words and already addressed "me" thus affirming the existence of these three things. Since the existence of "you", "me" and "this" are intrinsic to anything you might try to argue, we should take their existence as axioms. What can be argued from axioms which are irrefutable by the nature of argumentation itself? Starting with just the existence of the arguers and their arguments, can they argue for the existence of anything more? If not, what else do they need to assume?
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  Also, from a system of things that only exists with respect to participants will, we can hack it into a system of things with objective physical existence by presupposing a fictitious all-knowing never-lying arbitrator who will is physical law. In other words, we can invent god as a useful linguistic fiction to rig into being the aspects of my system you've criticized as impossible to construct.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Well, that's a sixth axiom to your system - now you've added a consciousness that has vastly more power than all the others. My point was that we can't find out anything about the phsycial world by just discussing it. We each have to experience it ourselves using our own senses. We can of course later discuss to devise new ways of understanding what the world is and how it works, but even then, we need to put any theories we come up with to the test to check if they actually hold up.
    - IIAOPSW 4y ago
      >now you've added a consciousness that has vastly more power than all the others. Superficially yes but actually no. This fictitious admin character doesn't have any actual powers, I'm simply choosing a particular "consciousness" to be a fixed and agreed upon meter stick of objectivity. All measurement systems are arbitrary. We could choose anyones POV to fix as the "objective" truth. If we both agree on the same "definer entity" then we can be in agreement about other things objectively defined relative to them. But crucially this is all still nothing more than us reaching agreement. All that really exists is still just you me and the words. So how about it. Do you believe in Bob?
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Ok, but then we might agree that there is no sun, that frogs are born from rocks and mice from leaves, that the stars are holes in the sphere of the heavens and so on - as many people did for millenia. They had consensus - and they were utterly wrong. The actual world actually exists. The world isn't any less round for members of the Flat Earth Society.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  You seem to have done a switcheroo, from consciousness to free will.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> Starting from these as axioms, what can we construct? Nothing, unless there is also a physical world which actually exists independent of any of the participants' will.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
This text is in the physical world. This statement exists on your screen independent of my will. It may exist in the first place because of my will, but its continued existence before you right now is independent of me. We have a shared reality in the form of this very text based medium.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Sure, the physical world exists independent of our will and communication, so this text (and all the electric fields that traveled between our machines over vast distances) exist regardless of our will or communication. But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently from any other agent. I know for sure I exist in some sense, I believe very strongly that the physical world exists, and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine. In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists than I am of the fact that your subjective experience exists. If I found out the comment I am responding to was in fact GPT-3 output, I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me. So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than a world of conscious discussion; and exploring the physical world in the aspects we ourselves can observe about it alone is a much more convincing argument than trying to discuss it with other conscious agents. It's much easier to convince someone else that I can pass through walls than it is for me to actually pass through a wall.
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    >But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently >In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists >So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than Phrasing all of these in terms of what you believe and what you are convinced/certain of, instead of in terms of what absolutely is, makes my point for me. You didn't even realize you were talking in terms of you getting me to agree over what to believe rather than some objective nature of things indifferent to my opinion. That's how deep seated this is in the way brains and consciousness work. >I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me. You even phrased the discussion of your own sensory perception in terms of messages. In this case messages from your own senses. And you personified them too, treating them as conscious enough to lie to you. >I know for sure I exist in some sense... and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine. You're already agreeing with my axioms. I know I exist. No matter what argument I am making, it must exist in words and there must be a "you" I am trying to convince (even when I'm trying to convince myself). It is impossible to form an argument which rejects these axiomatic truths, for the moment you try you've already used words and already addressed "me" thus affirming the existence of these three things. Since the existence of "you", "me" and "this" are intrinsic to anything you might try to argue, we should take their existence as axioms. What can be argued from axioms which are irrefutable by the nature of argumentation itself? Starting with just the existence of the arguers and their arguments, can they argue for the existence of anything more? If not, what else do they need to assume?
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Also, from a system of things that only exists with respect to participants will, we can hack it into a system of things with objective physical existence by presupposing a fictitious all-knowing never-lying arbitrator who will is physical law. In other words, we can invent god as a useful linguistic fiction to rig into being the aspects of my system you've criticized as impossible to construct.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Well, that's a sixth axiom to your system - now you've added a consciousness that has vastly more power than all the others. My point was that we can't find out anything about the phsycial world by just discussing it. We each have to experience it ourselves using our own senses. We can of course later discuss to devise new ways of understanding what the world is and how it works, but even then, we need to put any theories we come up with to the test to check if they actually hold up.
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    >now you've added a consciousness that has vastly more power than all the others. Superficially yes but actually no. This fictitious admin character doesn't have any actual powers, I'm simply choosing a particular "consciousness" to be a fixed and agreed upon meter stick of objectivity. All measurement systems are arbitrary. We could choose anyones POV to fix as the "objective" truth. If we both agree on the same "definer entity" then we can be in agreement about other things objectively defined relative to them. But crucially this is all still nothing more than us reaching agreement. All that really exists is still just you me and the words. So how about it. Do you believe in Bob?
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Ok, but then we might agree that there is no sun, that frogs are born from rocks and mice from leaves, that the stars are holes in the sphere of the heavens and so on - as many people did for millenia. They had consensus - and they were utterly wrong. The actual world actually exists. The world isn't any less round for members of the Flat Earth Society.
denton-scratch 4y ago
You seem to have done a switcheroo, from consciousness to free will.