Comment by iugtmkbdfil834
20 days ago
Overall, I like the direction and curiosity. I will answer general points as they occur to me.
<< If our assumption is true that the physical laws have lead to consciousness, we will ultimately see conscious
"Ultimately" is doing a lot of work here. It is hardly a given, but assuming it is true allows you to smuggle a conclusion in. I see what you did:D
But lets go with that assumption for rebuttal below.
<< Computable consciousnesses appear to be self contained and self sustaining.
Again.. hardly a given and assumes what it intends to prove.
<< On top of all that this makes questions like "Who created the universe" and "why do we exist" pointless
It seems you have a bias for a specific outcome. Not exactly a recipe for accuracy. It has a benefit of sounding neat though.
***
And now for a overall rebuttal:
A mathematical description of a fire does not burn anything. A mathematical description of a mind may not experience anything unless instantiated in some causally active environment ( that would include a simulation instance ).
First of all, thanks for responding.
>It is hardly a given..
Ok, fair enough. So let us also seed the simulation with all the random events from our universe. That should cover it, right?
>A mathematical description of a fire does not burn anything..
This is the self evident dogma that we have to overcome to understand this idea.
You say that a mathematical description of a fire does not burn anything. But what if both the fire as well as the thing it is burning is described by the math? Have you seen those fractal animations? In them, there would be things that appear to be a spear piercing or pushing through things around it. There both the spear (or what appears to be) and the thing it is piercing/pushing is described by the fractal. And one thing did not cause the other.
So we are turning the idea of causality on its head. In this world one thing does not cause another. But both cause and effect are described by the mathematical structure that contain them. This also connects to the earlier idea that "computable consciousnesses are self sustaining". The brain did not cause consciousness. But both the brain and consciousness are described by the math.
<< This is the self evident dogma that we have to overcome to understand this idea.
It is more of an argument. If the mathematical description somehow created fire, it would have been closer to an actual spell, but it doesn't, which would suggest that description is not accurate or the argument is flawed ( edit: or both ). The flaw I noted puts both your and my argument in a difficult place, because it, among other things, exposes your surety about 'ultimately'.
I am engaging with you, because, while I think you are wrong, I don't want to pour cold water on an inquisitive mind ( and some of the thoughts you listed are interesting to explore ) -- I just also happen to think you got too mesmerized by the novelty of the idea.
FWIW, I am just guy on the internet so don't take my word for it.
> I don't want to pour cold water on an inquisitive mind..
Thanks, I appreciate that.
> If the mathematical description somehow created fire..
The mathematical description does not create a fire. It describes a consciousness that is observing a fire.
I am not elaborating so as to not muddle the above point.
1 reply →