I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.
We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there.
Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Occam's razor.
I read it and I asked you a question, so don’t be a dick: answer it or don’t respond. Experience being “least complex” is in no way an objective truth especially if it’s fundamental. The only thing any person knows to be objectively true is that they have experience, we just assume other things don’t for some reason.
We have no reason not to assume that all reality in the universe has experience (consciousness). That's the whole point I've made there.
Your last sentence explains the second-to-last one: all we know is we have experience, therefore all we can assume about not-us is that it also has experience, because any other explanation would unduly add more complexity to the theory of consciousness in the universe. It's just Occam's razor.
That's the point I'm making though, and your previous comment seemed to imply the exact opposite of this? Glad we're in agreement then.
1 reply →