3 ms·

I really like the way you stated your arguments. First: Yes, I agree. Second: Hmm... I don't know. People talk about ghosts a lot as well. There are many pe

I really like the way you stated your arguments. First: Yes, I agree. Second: Hmm... I don't know. People talk about ghosts a lot as well. There are many people who claim that they see ghosts. But I don't think that is strong evidence that ghosts exist. Third: We need a consistent definition of consciousness here. It would waste a lot of time if it turned out we were debating different concepts. I believe your idea of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon that arises from simpler processes, much like how biology arises from the simple laws of QM. Is this correct? If so, then with that definition of consciousness, I agree with you. And we will learn more about it as time goes on. Fourth: Yes, I agree. Chaitin's constant is my favorite exemplification of that idea. Finally: "Do you think that this means your consciousness has nothing to do with your claim to be conscious?" Yes, that is exactly what I think. Although replace "consciousness" with "the act of experiencing existence" and that is a much closer semantic match to what I am attempting to convey. > 1. My claim to be conscious does have to do with the fact of my consciousness. (Agree?) No, for the simple reason that you can write a computer program that prints out "I am conscious." Its claim of consciousness is only due to a program that someone wrote. > 2. My claim to be conscious is completely determined by physics, since I would also make it in p-zombie world. (Agree?) Yes, I agree with that. > 3. Therefore, the fact of my consciousness must fall out of physics. Were 1 and 2 true statements, they would indeed imply 3. But since I don't agree with 1, 3 also doesn't seem to be true.

Bakkot 14y ago
> I believe your idea of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon that arises from simpler processes, much like how biology arises from the simple laws of QM. Is this correct? I wouldn't call that a definition. Here's a working one: my consciousness is the part of me which thinks and feels, which enjoys music and mountains and friends and so forth. Computers as of now can take input, but can't experience input the way I do; the gap is what I call consciousness. (To this definition your above description does apply.) > "Do you think that this means your consciousness has nothing to do with your claim to be conscious?" Yes, that is exactly what I think. Although replace "consciousness" with "the act of experiencing existence" and that is a much closer semantic match to what I am attempting to convey. This is the bit I'm having trouble with. For me, I experience things, and then state that I experience things. The relationship is direct and causal. From what I understand you experience things and then state that you experience things, and these facts are completely unrelated? I'm pretty sure Occam had something to say about that.

Bakkot 14y ago

> I believe your idea of consciousness is that it is an emergent phenomenon that arises from simpler processes, much like how biology arises from the simple laws of QM. Is this correct? I wouldn't call that a definition. Here's a working one: my consciousness is the part of me which thinks and feels, which enjoys music and mountains and friends and so forth. Computers as of now can take input, but can't experience input the way I do; the gap is what I call consciousness. (To this definition your above description does apply.) > "Do you think that this means your consciousness has nothing to do with your claim to be conscious?" Yes, that is exactly what I think. Although replace "consciousness" with "the act of experiencing existence" and that is a much closer semantic match to what I am attempting to convey. This is the bit I'm having trouble with. For me, I experience things, and then state that I experience things. The relationship is direct and causal. From what I understand you experience things and then state that you experience things, and these facts are completely unrelated? I'm pretty sure Occam had something to say about that.