Comment by adwn
7 days ago
No, there is at least one other option, which is that consciousness [1] is a phenomenon that we can't replicate in non-biological brains [2], but from which the existence of a "God"-like being, as the term is understood by major religions, still doesn't follow.
[1] Or "qualia", to be precise.
[2] For example, the existence of qualia might require certain carbon-based structures which aren't present in silicon-based devices.
There is nothing that we know of in carbon based structures that violates universal causality, even in quantum scales where causality becomes more vague it is replaced by a measurable randomness.
So there should be no reason we cannot reduce these phenomena to actual quantifiable and there for Computable elements.
Computing something isn’t the same thing as it actually happening.
That is a dubious asertion. At high enough resolution the model converges on the modeled.
3 replies →
Would you say that displaying image of something on a screen qualifies as actually happening? Writing data on a storage medium? What about a roomba vacuuming a floor?
10 replies →
> […] that violates universal causality
I think you're conflating qualia with free will. These are very different concepts, and the experience of qualia has nothing at all to do with "violating causality".
> So there should be no reason we cannot reduce these phenomena to actual quantifiable and there for Computable elements.
As long as we have practically no idea how qualia arise, or even what exactly they are, your claim has no base to stand on.
Qualia are a begged question from the start, imo.
Did typing this sentence feel funny?
How would I tell? ;)
Basically the Chinese Room argument. By now clear wrong.
How do you figure that? The Chinese Room has had many replies but no clear refutation.
That's because Chinese Room is an assumption, not an argument.
1 reply →