3 ms·

>in principle simulate the laws of physics This sort of implies that consciousness arise from physical laws. But this is not a safe assumption. Physical laws

by qsera 6mo ago

>in principle simulate the laws of physics This sort of implies that consciousness arise from physical laws. But this is not a safe assumption. Physical laws stand on top of observations that is registered on consciousness. I mean, consciousness could be lower level than physics. For example, when you dream, you have some physical laws in your dream, perhaps laws that are different from the real world physics. So the dream world, including the physical laws in it, are within your consciousness. In other words the only thing that require existence of a whole universe, is a single conscious that can experience it (or dream it), not a single atom need to exist outside of it. In that case, you won't be able to create consciousness by applying physical laws.

iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
<< This sort of implies that consciousness arise from physical laws. Very odd counter argument to make. Are you suggesting that consciousness can arise outside of physical laws or making semantic argument along the lines of 'directly a result of'?
- qsera 6mo ago
  Thought I made it clear. What I am saying is the possibility that consciousness is fundamental and all reality arises from it. Look up Mathematical Universe Hypothesis... Wrote a bit more about this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000035
  - iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
    I soo want to throw my philosopher's persona on you, but I won't. It seems wrong for some reason. I will simply say that the linked post is sloppy reasoning at best. I guess what I am really saying: Can you either get me something that is yours to claim as your own OR clearer representation? I am not spending my leisure time searching online for a tenuous argument. Now.. arguing with a rando online. Count me in.
    - emp17344 6mo ago
      He’s describing idealism, which is a philosophically valid position to hold, and one which is gaining popularity. I’m guessing the majority of HN strongly leans towards physicalism in the philosophy of mind debate, which may be why you seem so keen to blow off the user you responded to, but philosophically speaking, idealism is no less valid a position to hold.
      - dragonwriter 6mo ago
        Idealism may be a “philosophically valid position”, whatever that means, but physicalism is the only framework which supports any means of resolving questions of what exists and what properties things that exist have; empirical science and the technology dependent on it works to the extent that physicalism is, if not necessarily correct, at least a useful framework for predicting future experiences. Idealism has no similar utility, however “philosophically valid” it might be.
        qsera 6mo ago
        >a useful framework for predicting future experiences I think if MUH is true, we will find ourselves alone in this universe. Does that qualify?
    - qsera 6mo ago
      >Can you either get me something that is yours to claim as your own OR clearer representation? Ok here is a thought experiment. Imagine that was assume that physical laws have resulted in our evolution, I mean, the evolution of consciousness. As another comment said, imagine we simulate these physical laws (exhaustively) in a computer. If our assumption is true that the physical laws have lead to consciousness, we will ultimately see conscious beings emerge in this simulated world. There is no reason to think that these conscious beings will not have subjective experiences just like us. I think we can consider it as a proof that consciousness is "computable". Now let us imagine what happens if we stop simulating the whole universe, and only simulate a single conscious brain. Do the respective consciousness still have the experience of a full universe? This depend on how the simulation works. If the simulation reads back from the world that it renders, to create sensations for the consciousness in question, then it will just be devoid of all sensations. But why should the simulation read back what it renders? It has all the information to render the sensations of the consciousness for the whole universe. In this case, the consciousness will still sense the whole universe. This seems to indicate that if consciousness is computable aka if it is definable then the subjective experiences inside it can exist without the anything actually computing it. It is like a circle existing even if it is not drawn anywhere. Computable consciousnesses appear to be self contained and self sustaining. In Hindu mythology there is a concept of a god being "swayambhoo", in other words being created on its own. I think this converges to that idea. I also think this is how multiple universes and how infinite time and space can exist. Multiple universes exist because universes can differ in random events without causing the conditions for existence of consciousness to disappear. So each such varient w.r.t random a single random event is a different universe. On top of all that this makes questions like "Who created the universe" and "why do we exist" pointless. Because as per this idea, existence and subjective experience is implicit. This, for me is the greatest merit of this idea.

by qsera 6mo ago

iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago

<< This sort of implies that consciousness arise from physical laws. Very odd counter argument to make. Are you suggesting that consciousness can arise outside of physical laws or making semantic argument along the lines of 'directly a result of'?

qsera 6mo ago
Thought I made it clear. What I am saying is the possibility that consciousness is fundamental and all reality arises from it. Look up Mathematical Universe Hypothesis... Wrote a bit more about this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000035 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000035
- iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
  I soo want to throw my philosopher's persona on you, but I won't. It seems wrong for some reason. I will simply say that the linked post is sloppy reasoning at best. I guess what I am really saying: Can you either get me something that is yours to claim as your own OR clearer representation? I am not spending my leisure time searching online for a tenuous argument. Now.. arguing with a rando online. Count me in.
  - emp17344 6mo ago
    He’s describing idealism, which is a philosophically valid position to hold, and one which is gaining popularity. I’m guessing the majority of HN strongly leans towards physicalism in the philosophy of mind debate, which may be why you seem so keen to blow off the user you responded to, but philosophically speaking, idealism is no less valid a position to hold.
    - dragonwriter 6mo ago
      Idealism may be a “philosophically valid position”, whatever that means, but physicalism is the only framework which supports any means of resolving questions of what exists and what properties things that exist have; empirical science and the technology dependent on it works to the extent that physicalism is, if not necessarily correct, at least a useful framework for predicting future experiences. Idealism has no similar utility, however “philosophically valid” it might be.
      - qsera 6mo ago
        >a useful framework for predicting future experiences I think if MUH is true, we will find ourselves alone in this universe. Does that qualify?
  - qsera 6mo ago
    >Can you either get me something that is yours to claim as your own OR clearer representation? Ok here is a thought experiment. Imagine that was assume that physical laws have resulted in our evolution, I mean, the evolution of consciousness. As another comment said, imagine we simulate these physical laws (exhaustively) in a computer. If our assumption is true that the physical laws have lead to consciousness, we will ultimately see conscious beings emerge in this simulated world. There is no reason to think that these conscious beings will not have subjective experiences just like us. I think we can consider it as a proof that consciousness is "computable". Now let us imagine what happens if we stop simulating the whole universe, and only simulate a single conscious brain. Do the respective consciousness still have the experience of a full universe? This depend on how the simulation works. If the simulation reads back from the world that it renders, to create sensations for the consciousness in question, then it will just be devoid of all sensations. But why should the simulation read back what it renders? It has all the information to render the sensations of the consciousness for the whole universe. In this case, the consciousness will still sense the whole universe. This seems to indicate that if consciousness is computable aka if it is definable then the subjective experiences inside it can exist without the anything actually computing it. It is like a circle existing even if it is not drawn anywhere. Computable consciousnesses appear to be self contained and self sustaining. In Hindu mythology there is a concept of a god being "swayambhoo", in other words being created on its own. I think this converges to that idea. I also think this is how multiple universes and how infinite time and space can exist. Multiple universes exist because universes can differ in random events without causing the conditions for existence of consciousness to disappear. So each such varient w.r.t random a single random event is a different universe. On top of all that this makes questions like "Who created the universe" and "why do we exist" pointless. Because as per this idea, existence and subjective experience is implicit. This, for me is the greatest merit of this idea.