Read the passage I quoted and think about it. It relates to the topic of the OP.

It doesn't relate to anything I said, and you did not answer the question:

Do you think that atoms do "give rise" to language and consciousness or not?

I've tried to explain it, you don't understand how my explanation relates to your post, we're obviously talking past one another. I'll let someone else have a try.

You are incoherent, you can not focus a single sentence to directly address anything specific I said. You misinterpret me and then respond to yourself as if you are talking to me. You ask questions for no particular reason that you yourself refuse to answer. You are a waste of time.

You haven't explained the explanatory gap, you've only waved your hands at it.

Take any theory of consciousness, all they can do in their search for the ”substance of qualia” is to reach the bottom of reductionism and then simply stop.

There is only one thing that is not exhausted by reductionism, it’s computation and almost unlimited possibilities of virtual reality.

The only explanation we know of, for the existence of things that can not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence.

There is only one thing that is not exhausted by reductionism, it’s computationalism — Zelebg

What a great coincidence that the technology we mastered in the past forty years just happens to be the secret of consciousness. How lucky we are! What are the odds?

Then Searle's argument makes a wrong presupposition that it is an adequate model of how understanding works. — Zelebg

It doesn't offer a model of understanding, though. It uses a clear case of non-understanding (you processing symbols in a language you don't understand) to show that showing syntax isn't showing semantics.

So I don't see what your gremlins are. Semantics? You don't see meaning and understanding as required for consciousness? Ok...

What a great coincidence that the technology we mastered in the past forty years just happens to be the secret of consciousness. How lucky we are! What are the odds?

Time and odds do not change the fact that the only explanation we know of, for the existence of things that can not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence.

It doesn't offer a model of understanding, though. It uses a clear case of non-understanding (you processing symbols in a language you don't understand) to show that showing syntax isn't showing semantics.

If it doesn't work on some supposed model of understanding, then how can it prove anything about understanding? Or, if it uses a clear case of non-understanding, how is it supposed to prove anything about understanding?

Searle argument simply works on the wrong model of understanding which he obviously takes as being universally accepted, but that is a wrong assumption, which once might have been true though. But today it really should be clear he simply starts with the wrong model and then proves the wrong model is wrong, it’s a farce.

Searle argument simply [works on refutes] a wrong model of understanding [as syntax] which he obviously takes as being [universally too widely] accepted as correct, but that is a wrong assumption, which once might have been true though. But today it really should be clear he simply starts with the wrong model and then proves the wrong model is wrong, it’s a farce. — Zelebg

He might agree with that :wink:

Makes sense. So we are still suffering ghosts of the past mistakes. Which reminds me to tell you something I don’t expect anyone will believe, but it can be tested and I know it is true.

It has to do with evolution of simulation or “numerical modeling” from the time before there were any computers through the time when computers were slow, and how that matters now.

Many proofs in modern physics are based on experiments and calculations that are more than half a century old and were never repeated with modern equipment or using modern computers. Actually some experiments and simulations were repeated showing past mistakes and inaccuracies, but you will not find this information easily.

For example, failure to simulate or develop an atomic model with continuous trajectories led to quantum mechanics. Before computers they used some kind of precalculated tables, and that simply does not work with any system with more than two bodies, but it actually can be done with proper simulation, thus QM is superfluous to begin with.

The advance of the perihelion of Mercury,, also using precalculated tables considering only pairs of interacting bodies and not system as a whole, but implementation of general relativity with a proper numerical modeling of the whole system shows it falls apart, planets end up spiraling into the sun or reaching velocities greater than that of light, thus GR is just wrong.

Many modern computer games, physics software engines and scientific simulations use time integration algorithms developed with first computers that use various kinds of extrapolation techniques to optimise processing. However, as computer speed increased those tricks became redundant and even counterproductive, but people forgot how it all came to be and think the hacks are part of it all. So if you play some video game and see visual artifacts like screen tearing, stuttering or glitching, it does not have to be like that, it’s because of 50 years old algorithm with unnecessary and counterproductive optimisations, thus even very many very smart people can be very stupid.

this op is entirely nonsensical - it doesn't convey anything about the original argument, nor any insight into what might be wrong with the original argument. — Wayfarer

I 2nd that motion. Moreover, OP saying "We are virtual, people, I’m telling you." is a meaningless statement, IMHO. b/c everything mental is virtual. so, obvious "I" and qualia is virtual, like our consciousness. virtual does not mean something is not real, at least to someone, somewhere...

An associated question: What if the computer tells you it is aware of itself and not simply aware to the extent it can answer questions? What would be your test for self-awareness? — jgill

There is no sure fire test. You can't ask me and I can't ask you any question that tests self-awareness. If you say you have it, then from my point of view it could be true, or it could be just a programmed response.

There is no sure fire test. You can't ask me and I can't ask you any question that tests self-awareness. If you say you have it, then from my point of view it could be true, or it could be just a programmed response.

You do not test by questioning, but by being questioned. If a kid spontaneously one day asks “is my red the same as your red?”, I’d say that gives confirmation with significant confidence, if not certainty. Similarly, if a robot who was not explicitly thought of anything about such matters spontaneously develops curiosity about its qualia, then the best explanation is that it actually is a subject of phenomenal experience itself.