Comment by iugtmkbdfil834

>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.

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.