I know it leads into a hall of mirrors. But what else would you expect?

Some thoughts on knowledge/reality/the unknown. — Brett

What you wrote seemed interesting but a little off my beaten path so I will leave this as it is.

It’s interesting that we want to understand. Why aren’t we content with the experience? Why believe dreams refer to something? I’m not saying it’s pointless, but why do we believe there’s something there? — Brett

Messages from the collective unconscious. Dreams are mysterious. Why think they mean something. Why think they DON'T mean anything? It's an arbitrary hypothesis either way.

I'm sure our primitive ancestors must have felt dreams to be real.

An idea is a fiction.

Not necessarily. The idea that the Earth orbits the Sun is true, so it's not a fiction. An idea, belief, proposition, is a product of the mind, but if such a product of the mind is true to the facts, then it isn't a fiction.

The earth orbiting the sun is not an idea.

You can't know what is fiction without knowing what is fact. So what is fact? If there are none, how can we be sure fiction even exists?

Safe word here is 'perception'. Either backed up by enough to compartmentalize it where the at this point theoretical 'fact' goes or just you calling it as you see it.

Oddly solipsistic if you ask me. Which may or may not be detrimental to advancing the philosophical thought process.

So what is fact? If there are none, — Outlander

I don’t know if I’ve ever said that. The earth orbiting the sun is a fact, what we think is happening is a fiction.

The earth orbiting the sun is a fact, what we think is happening is a fiction.

Do you think the earth is orbiting the sun?

This is an issue I've wondered about when people talk about simulation theory. Are they simulating my reality as in Descartes' deceiver? If so, then my "I" is still separate from my vat programmers. Do the simulationists instead mean that the computer not only creates my reality, but also somehow creates my "I"? So that my I is an illusion too? And Descartes was wrong? That's the argument for simulating a mind. That Descartes was wrong about the primacy of his I.

Simulation theory runs into the same problems materialism does wrt consciousness: how does opening and closing switches (or q-bits) in some special order produce conscious experience?

Simulation theory runs into the same problems materialism does wrt consciousness: how does opening and closing switches (or q-bits) in some special order produce conscious experience? — RogueAI

In my opinion opening and closing switches can never implement consciousness; for the reason that opening and closing switches essentially defines the capabilities and limits of a Turing machine (TM); and TMs can not implement consciousness. Searle and Penrose agree with me.

Materialism does not necessarily have that problem. Consciousness could be material but not computable. That's a great description of my viewpoint. Something about meat is special. Computer scientist and blogger Scott Aaronson would call that meat chauvinism. Turing would also. Turing said that since subjective experience is not accessible to others, the question's pointless. All we can see is behavior; hence a behavioral standard like the Turing test.

Something about meat is special.

That's very ad hoc. It's much simpler to avoid the special pleading and just go with idealism.

I agree with you that consciousness isn't computable. That would be another case of special pleading: series XY...Z of switching actions/q-bit whatevers produces a conscious experience but series AB...C doesn't? That makes no sense. What's so special about XY...Z? Why should the order in which switches are pulled have anything to do with consciousness?

That's very ad hoc. It's much simpler to avoid the special pleading and just go with idealism. — RogueAI

I am the first to admit that believing meat is special is obviously false; in the sense that looking back, believing the earth is the center of the universe was obviously false. Though at the time, it was perfectly sensible. So I agree with you that the entire history of science argues the opposite of my premise. If we're special. why are we special? It's statistically unlikely for any organization of stuff to be conscious. Why should meat be capable of consciousness and nothing else?

Well I sure as hell don't know. I just believe what I believe but I can see that I can't defend it with logic. Therefore my position must be classified as religion.

I agree with you that consciousness isn't computable. That would be another case of special pleading: series XY...Z of switching actions/q-bit whatevers produces a conscious experience but series AB...C doesn't? That makes no sense. What's so special about XY...Z? Why should the order in which switches are pulled have anything to do with consciousness? — RogueAI

Perhaps it's something we're not ever meant to know. There is actually a name for this philosophical viewpoint, New Mysterianism. Wiki calls it "a philosophical position proposing that the hard problem of consciousness cannot be resolved by humans."

That's what I think, too.

No, it's not(but I think the topic is good and expands on other similar topics).

mind is abstract. — OP

Mind is a sense-experience using a sensory-limb array and body, made possible with internal organs(who's root is in the universe).

The unutilized mind is mind-fiction, but it's utilization is a matter-of-fact.

I am entangled in mind-fact for periods of time, but I know a time will come where I'm blue estranged as the city in midnight. This will be at a time where I'm not employing the mind, but rather, where my brain is using my energy to exist.

Thanks for the link! I have to read up on this. It's been 20 years since I was in class.