3 ms·
YES - I agree entirely. But how are we going to escape solipsism? These questions need a practical solution, not a perfect one. That's the problem. We need
by qarl2 2mo ago
YES - I agree entirely. But how are we going to escape solipsism?
These questions need a practical solution, not a perfect one. That's the problem. We need to stop chasing the perfect one.
- GPerson 2mo agoI agreed with you earlier that there’s no empirical test against solipsism. So the escape is just to accept not all beliefs worth holding are empirically verifiable. I deny solipsism because I believe there is a universe and things in it obey some kind regular patterns. You have a brain similar to mine, and similar to other animals. I believe consciousness has something to do with the brain, so I believe you are conscious.
- qarl2 2mo agoSure. And that's what I mean by a practical solution. But it seems suspect to accept a practical solution in one area (humans) and deny it in an almost identical (machines with neuron based brains) area. No?
- GPerson 2mo agoIf by neuron based you mean the biological neuron, then I agree. If you mean an arbitrary substrate which models every aspect of a neuron we are aware of, I’m not sure. I think it would be more surprising if it’s impossible to do processing without creating consciousness with some substrate than one in which e.g. calculating the state of a computer using pencil and paper actually produces consciousness. I personally believe whatever consciousness is, it’s a causal physical (yet to be understood) process, and the measurements of neuron states are just some residue of it, not the thing itself.