> I think our brains are machines for predicting what happens next. Technologist thinks that humans are machines (breaking news) > Therefore, a large brain ma

> I think our brains are machines for predicting what happens next. Technologist thinks that humans are machines (breaking news) > Therefore, a large brain makes sense because it can simulate the world more precisely and make better predictions. Whence consciousness? > One mistake of this simulation is that the brain simulates us as a conscious agent who can make their own decisions and act in the world. A mistake? Like a random mutation (consciousness) which just persisted because there was no evolutionary pressure to get rid of it? Or did it persist in everyone? Maybe half of humanity is conscious while the other half is not? They operate exactly the same except the conscious half wastes some kilojoules fretting over awareness. A machine doesn’t need to simulate being aware of decision-making. That’s cruft. Wasted cycles. Maybe you’re reasoning backwards from the human-centric idea that “making decisions” requires awareness. But then you incoherently assert that humans are machines, and machines don’t need consciousness to make decisions. > Maybe evolution set up this illusion on purpose so that we don't get depressed and kill ourselves. So (if I am understanding correctly), consciousness was a random mutation of a complex organism. Of course someone can be conscious and not feel like they have free will. Like they are just along for the ride. But this is “depressing” somehow.[1] So now a free will illusion mutation has to occur in order to protect the machine from self-killing. Seems convoluted. [1] But why? 80% of the HN philosophers seem fine with it.