4 ms·

No need to define it or prove it. Just assume it.

uoaei 3y ago
What reason do you have to do so? What purpose would doing that serve? As it stands you are just suggesting complicated, untestable theories. The point above is, that is ultimately pointless. The simplest possible argument goes as follows: I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious. An alternative hypothesis may be presented, but it would then need to be proven using reproducible studies and real evidence before we can assume the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis, per the consensus definition of formalized "science". The rebuttal along epistemological lines goes as follows: you can know you are conscious, but you cannot necessarily know things that are witnessed through physical (limited, imperfect) sensory organs, so there is a wall beyond which we are forced only to postulate truths rather than conclusively prove them. And the response to that is: if we are to progress in our analysis at all, we must postulate certain truths, and it is "best" to postulate only the least complex (in the Kolmogorov sense) assumptions given the data (Occam's Razor). "Best" is defined according to humanity's scientific principles.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Are you not doing the same? What reason do we have to assume that things don’t have experience?
  - uoaei 3y ago
    See the final paragraph of the comment you're referring to.
    - edgyquant 3y ago
      I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there. Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Occam's razor.
        edgyquant 3y ago
        That's the point I'm making though, and your previous comment seemed to imply the exact opposite of this? Glad we're in agreement then.
        uoaei 3y ago
        I'm not sure what could be confusing you, I was careful to pick my words. I have noticed that you, specifically, tend to come in hot on ongoing conversations. I noticed it because I also have a tendency to do so and have been working to address it lately to varying success. But sometimes that causes some reading miscomprehensions because you're moving too fast. If you try reading my comments again, thoroughly, you will find the following text: > I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious. That was the point I was making. You re-iterated it in an attempt at some kind of rebuttal to something I didn't say.

What reason do you have to do so? What purpose would doing that serve? As it stands you are just suggesting complicated, untestable theories. The point above is, that is ultimately pointless. The simplest possible argument goes as follows: I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious. An alternative hypothesis may be presented, but it would then need to be proven using reproducible studies and real evidence before we can assume the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis, per the consensus definition of formalized "science". The rebuttal along epistemological lines goes as follows: you can know you are conscious, but you cannot necessarily know things that are witnessed through physical (limited, imperfect) sensory organs, so there is a wall beyond which we are forced only to postulate truths rather than conclusively prove them. And the response to that is: if we are to progress in our analysis at all, we must postulate certain truths, and it is "best" to postulate only the least complex (in the Kolmogorov sense) assumptions given the data (Occam's Razor). "Best" is defined according to humanity's scientific principles.

edgyquant 3y ago
Are you not doing the same? What reason do we have to assume that things don’t have experience?
- uoaei 3y ago
  See the final paragraph of the comment you're referring to.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there. Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Occam's razor.
      - edgyquant 3y ago
        That's the point I'm making though, and your previous comment seemed to imply the exact opposite of this? Glad we're in agreement then.
        uoaei 3y ago
        I'm not sure what could be confusing you, I was careful to pick my words. I have noticed that you, specifically, tend to come in hot on ongoing conversations. I noticed it because I also have a tendency to do so and have been working to address it lately to varying success. But sometimes that causes some reading miscomprehensions because you're moving too fast. If you try reading my comments again, thoroughly, you will find the following text: > I am conscious, and I am made of matter. Everything else that is real is made of matter. There are other minds out there who also have this experience. With no further information, I must assume as the null hypothesis that everything in reality is conscious. That was the point I was making. You re-iterated it in an attempt at some kind of rebuttal to something I didn't say.