Can a collection of electronic switches be said to know anything? Doesn't that seem absurd? — RogueAI
(Not really "knows", but is constrained thus.) — Kenosha Kid
Doesn't seem absurd to me. — Kenosha Kid
If we use the standard definition, how could a collection of switches have a justified true belief about anything? How would that work? — RogueAI
So does the function ever in fact happen “in the dark”? Is there any reason to believe that? — apokrisis
There are good reasons for thinking that all that brain activity couldn’t do anything else but generate experience. — apokrisis
We start with experience, the bigger mystery is not "subjectivity", that's given, but the world. — Manuel
It can be no other reason than that there is consciousness. — Cartuna
With or w/o an observer, the computer does exactly the same thing: it shows pixels and emits sounds. It is us who call this activity a "simulation". The same would happen if the computer was playing a video. It is us who call this activity a "video". However, even if there is an observer watching the computer playing a simulation, but who has no idea what the computer currently does, he could not call it "simulation".people who think that without an observer, a computer simulation is just a bunch of pixels and sounds. I fall in the latter category. — RogueAI
It's just in this case I do think there are lots of very strong indications that consciousness is just brute. — bert1
Can you give an example of how nature counts?We count, but only because nature does — Kenosha Kid
I am afraid that you are twisting your words and/or adding meaning to them. This is totally different from what you said erlier "We count, but only because nature does" and on which I commented.This is counting as in: "accounting for quantity — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.