4 ms·

Asking where consciousness/qualia come from gets you saying "You know what consciousness is". So you don't answer. > To ask what something _is_ implies reducti

Asking where consciousness/qualia come from gets you saying "You know what consciousness is". So you don't answer. > To ask what something _is_ implies reduction Yes, but you learn something. What is wood? Partly it's lignin. What's that? Randomly polymerised phenol-like molecules. What's phenol? A benzene ring (unsaturated carbon ring) with an OH on it. What are C, O and H? Elements. What is (eg.) carbon? An atom composed of... etc. You can't reduce consciousness/qualia in any way so you cop out. The AI video #5 takes some interesting quantum stuff and extrapolates it with extreme dodginess and emotive language into some semi/pseudo-scientific conjectures. My guess is you haven't even watched the vids. > I submit to you that AI succeeds, and the empirical adequacy of those claims is abundantly linked in the description of the material you are downloading Nope. I've had enough here.

namero999 4y ago
> Yes, but you learn something. What is wood? Partly it's lignin. What's that? Randomly polymerised phenol-like molecules. What's phenol? A benzene ring (unsaturated carbon ring) with an OH on it. What are C, O and H? Elements. What is (eg.) carbon? An atom composed of... etc. Do you notice that this is infinite regress? At a certain point you must accept a non-reducible fundamental. If you don't, then it's infinite regress and you have explained effectively nothing. Materialism accepts the quantum foam as primitive. Idealism consciousness. But it's the same epistemic step, accepting a primitive, and derive the rest from it. Also, if you think that the references are pseudo-science, bring that up with the paper authors. AI simply offers an alternative interpretation, but those are studies coming out of mainstream science circles.