3 ms·

This wouldn't prove consciousness is physical. I'm not saying I'm a dualist, but pragmatically, the only thing I can say is that I'm conscious. It doesn't matte

This wouldn't prove consciousness is physical. I'm not saying I'm a dualist, but pragmatically, the only thing I can say is that I'm conscious. It doesn't matter if scientists showed me a conscious computer, that event is still happening in my consciousness. Why believe a computer the computer is conscious, when I can't even prove other humans are conscious? I don't necessarily believe the above, but no one mentioned this point. Also, the multiverse makes this an odder issue. If the simplest algorithm is to output all possible universes, what's stopping a universe from having just one observer?

alexandros 17y ago
Your position is dangerously close to solipsism. You allude to Occam's razor but it also answers your question. If the simplest algorithm does not imply limiting the amount of 'stuff' (universes), why would it limit the amount of observers?
- jackchristopher 17y ago
  In principle I can't prove which I'm in. You're right. I left that out. But I see no reason to believe one over the other. But perpetual doubt is disempowering too. And when I face an undecidable with equally plausible answers, I'm forced to test each view to see the results: what's life like with view x vs. view y. That result becomes the metric for a view's worth. And honestly that could be solipsism. Although I know it as a similar concept some call "subjective reality". Again I don't believe in solipsism or SR, I'm just pointing out that either could be true and you could never know. I do believe in the multiverse though. I always thought computers as conscious would prove consciousness was physical. I didn't realize my mistake till recently.
gambling8nt 17y ago
Statistically, wouldn't one expect to find oneself in a many-observer universe (assuming that those universes weren't vastly rarer than the single-observer ones)?

alexandros 17y ago

Your position is dangerously close to solipsism. You allude to Occam's razor but it also answers your question. If the simplest algorithm does not imply limiting the amount of 'stuff' (universes), why would it limit the amount of observers?

jackchristopher 17y ago
In principle I can't prove which I'm in. You're right. I left that out. But I see no reason to believe one over the other. But perpetual doubt is disempowering too. And when I face an undecidable with equally plausible answers, I'm forced to test each view to see the results: what's life like with view x vs. view y. That result becomes the metric for a view's worth. And honestly that could be solipsism. Although I know it as a similar concept some call "subjective reality". Again I don't believe in solipsism or SR, I'm just pointing out that either could be true and you could never know. I do believe in the multiverse though. I always thought computers as conscious would prove consciousness was physical. I didn't realize my mistake till recently.

gambling8nt 17y ago

Statistically, wouldn't one expect to find oneself in a many-observer universe (assuming that those universes weren't vastly rarer than the single-observer ones)?