3 ms·
> Why would something that has no consciousness make up that it has consciousness? You can make a computer program `printf("I have consciousness\n");` But I a
by Aardwolf 3y ago
> Why would something that has no consciousness make up that it has consciousness?
You can make a computer program `printf("I have consciousness\n");`
But I actually also didn't follow the rest of the argument. How does whether other people say they have consciousness or not, tell anything about whether it's physics based or not? If it's physics based, people could say they have consciousness. If it's not physics based, they could also say that?
- amelius 3y agoThe argument goes as follows: 1. People are talking about consciousness. 2. This talking happens in the physical world (soundwaves are being produced, etc.) 3. We assume that other people have consciousness since they talk about it. As you say, there is no absolute proof of this, but Occam's razor makes it silly to assume otherwise. 4. So, the soundwaves (physics) are happening because of consciousness. There is a causal link from consciousness to physics. This means that consciousness is not simply the observation of physics. It actually loops back into it, or physics is an emergent property of consciousness.
- Aardwolf 3y agoNot all sound is created that way, e.g. rain falling from the sky is not, do you intent to mean all physics, including rain, originate from consciousness in some way (such as in theories that everything is an illusion, ...), or rather, that consciousness can affect physics in some way, e.g. because you can choose to speak and produce sound waves
- amelius 3y agoYes, the second option is the one used in the argument. This shows that consciousness is not just qualia, i.e. the observation of physics.