3 ms·
> This contradicts everything we have learned about nature. It doesn't contradict anything. It simply means that there is a gap in our current understanding, w
by selcuka 5mo ago
> This contradicts everything we have learned about nature.
It doesn't contradict anything. It simply means that there is a gap in our current understanding, which may (or may not [1]) be scientifically explained in the future.
The default reflex of the opponents of "the hard question" (i.e. those who deny the existence of such a question) is to attach a religious or spiritualist meaning to it, which is far from the truth. It's a question that arises from scientific curiosity that we hope to answer one day.
[1] The "may not" part does not imply that there is something magical or metaphysical about it. There are things that we may not ever answer, like "do parallel universes exist" or "was there another universe before the big bang".
- orwin 5mo agoMy position is that the qalia are simulated by our brains as an evolutionary response to "this organism has to recognize it's continuity and unity across space and time", and the more the brain is developed, the strongest this impression has to be. I'll admit my position was built not to explain the hard problem of consciousness, but to find a philosophical answers to animals and newborn reactions to the mirror test, but I found it satisfactory enough when I heard about the hard problem of consciousness. My main argument for it is not an attack, it's simply Hanlon's razor. If you find a simpler explanation that doesn't demand new understanding, I will listen to it, if you do not, you have to show me the simplest solution is wrong, and I'll go to the second simplest.
- suddenlybananas 5mo agoHow do we experience that though?
- lostmsu 5mo agoThe neural connections get rewired.
- card_zero 5mo agoHanlon's razor? That one is "never assume malice where stupidity will do". You want Occam's razor, or the word "parsimonious".
- mangolie 5mo agoThat does not explain how it is possible for a simulation to experience itself
- orwin 5mo agoIt doesn't. It has the illusion of experience.
- cgio 5mo agoBy saying it’s simulated you don’t make a simplification. What does it simulate? What are the mechanics of simulation and is it substrate specific or independent? Can a computer simulate these qualia? It’s easy to say something is simple but harder to prove it is any simpler than the alternatives.
- unparagoned 5mo agoNo the hard problem is impossible to solve using science even a billion years in the future. If science can in theory explain consciousness ever then it’s an easy problem.
- justonceokay 5mo agoThis is the kind of religious thinking the GP is talking about. What other frontier of science do people claim will never be solved, except the existence of a god? Why are you so sure it cannot be touched?
- unparagoned 5mo agoNo I don't think the GP was talking about that, and that's the problem. The hard problem by definition is a frontier that science will never be able to solve. So I can be sure because that's how it's described in the Chalmers paper introducing the hard problem. The hard problem is Chalmers proof that physicalism could never be true. Like I said if science can explain something then that by definition is an easy problem.
- selcuka 5mo ago> The hard problem is Chalmers proof that physicalism could never be true. This is not fully correct. His position has been "naturalistic dualism", that is, consciousness is a fundamental feature of reality alongside physical properties. In other words, he thinks that physicalism can explain consciousness, but not in the way standard materialists claim. He says that consciousness does not automatically emerge after a certain number of synaptic connections in the brain. There may be another fundamental, physical requirement for it to occur.
- daseiner1 5mo ago> a religious or spiritualist meaning to it, which is far from the truth. It's a question that arises from scientific curiosity that we hope to answer one day. a) it is wrong to say definitively that it is untrue. there is no acid test for the existence of God nor of spirit. b) religious and spiritual traditions have wrangled with this very question for at least 3000 years. it is not a 'scientific curiosity'. It is one of the most fundamental questions of human experience.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- szmarczak 5mo agoa) there's an infinite amount of things that can't be proven/disproven and this includes all sorts of human imagination. We should focus on things that we can actually prove or disprove. The source of a god is human imagination, so you can't even prove that any god exists because you just don't know what it is (iow what exactly you're trying to prove). b) This being a fundamental question proves scientific curiosity. We wouldn't have achieved current technology if not for scientific curiosity.
- perfmode 5mo ago[flagged]