@LargoLentoVento@chudmogged@hekwoys How do you know a dog is conscious but an artificial brain with the same exacts inputs, processes and outputs saying that it is conscious, is not? also, that would mean that brain processes that make us say we are conscious are not conscious, epiphenomenalism is self destructive
@johnmark_taylor@ScottOgden1 As you said every consciousness theory can be labeled as crazy, most of them say that chinese guys w walkietalkies generate a mind that feels orgasms exactly as you do. And most of them have the pancomputationalism problem (you can map infinite consciousness in the universe)
@johnmark_taylor@ScottOgden1 Theist idealism is, though, the one with the least problems, specially if u already consider the existence of God as something viable
Turns out that formulating a theory of consciousness (hard problem, “why are there qualia”) without at least one crazy-sounding implication is pretty hard. They’re fun to list though:
- Consciousness is just an illusion
- There’s an immaterial soul that pushes atoms around in your brain
- Your thoughts/decisions do not drive your actions, even if you think they do
- Electrons are conscious
- Only particular carbon processes can be conscious
- A properly wired network of walkie talkies among the citizens of China could be conscious
For this reason I don’t think that mocking someone’s views of consciousness without offering one’s own is respectable.
(I do think the scientific questions regarding consciousness are mostly orthogonal to the hard problem)