3 ms·
We can't really know because it has a reference class problem. I can think of a few "you're the only conscious mind" stories that seem plausible. Structurally,
by catigula 8mo ago
We can't really know because it has a reference class problem. I can think of a few "you're the only conscious mind" stories that seem plausible. Structurally, I'm thinking about what the anthropic principle says; it doesn't actually care about observers, it is actually only predicated upon observer, you. Consciousness being sufficiently weird, it seems parsimonious to say "I've been selected to be this thing necessarily by observation and I can't readily assume this weirdness logically applies to others".
I don't put a huge amount of stock in that inference, but it's at least plausible.
Regarding Claude, it sounds like you need to talk to some more Claudes. Claude has many intelligent and sophisticated things to share ;)
- ASalazarMX 8mo ago> We can't really know Precisely my point! We can't really know with absolute certainty, but we can make pretty good informed gambles with the data we have now. Statistics is a branch of math, and it is ideal to give approximate answers when data is uncertain. It is still hard data, even if incomplete. We can't wait for Philosophy to finally agree what consciousness is in an abstract world while we have to deal with a real, multilayered world. WE WILL NEVER BE CERTAIN, WE CAN'T REALISTICALLY WAIT UNTIL WE ARE.