yes, but a series of dominos don't implement a process, like the process that can determine if a number is prime, unless they're set up in a specific way. So the question is, what way of setting up sand implements that process? — flannel jesus

Well, if there are a lot of processes that result in consciousness, and a lot of sand dunes being blown around by the wind, then occasionally, through random shifting of sand particles, some process that results in consciousness should occur through random chance.

what process do you think shifting sand is implementing that's conscious? — flannel jesus

There doesn't seem to me to be much difference between dominos falling over and sand grains moving around.

oh well then, in principle... MAYBE

Though I'm partial to the idea that, rather than dominos being conscious, or a computer being conscious, or a brain made of neurons being conscious, what if it's the *process* that's conscious? The process is substrate independent, maybe THAT'S the thing that's conscious, and not the thing the process is implemented on. — flannel jesus

If it's substrate independent, there could be "flashes" of consciousness happening all around us as processes occur in various things: meteor swarms, shifting sand dunes, clouds, etc.

I think if it can't, it's because what other people have mentioned - the dominos fall and don't pick themselves back up. Consciousness might require a certain level of recursion, and Dominos, becaus they fall and stay down, are kinda hampered in their ability to implement recursive algorithms.

I think computers - or even neurons - are basically fancy dominos without that limitation. — flannel jesus

What I meant by a system of dominoes includes a machine that continually sets them up after they fall according to some program.

Does anyone think a system of dominoes could be conscious?

Of course, there's the possibility that we discover life all over the place. — Patterner

Yes. I think that will be the case with non-intelligent life. My discussion with Relatavist was predicated on what would happen if we don't find any life anywhere and abiogenesis continues to be a mystery.

But sure, let's just say. I guess I would wonder why something created the simulation of such an outrageous size, and only simulated life where we are.

Simulating all the faraway galaxies wouldn't require much. They wouldn't have to be too "granular" to be convincing to us.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/oh-look-whos-leading-in-almost-all-of-the-swing-states/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

"The Wall Street Journal, late last night:

The poll of the election’s main battlegrounds shows Trump holding leads of between 2 and 8 percentage points in six states—Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina—on a test ballot that includes third-party and independent candidates. Trump holds similar leads when voters are asked to choose only between him and Biden.

The one outlier is Wisconsin, where Biden leads by 3 points on the multiple-candidate ballot, and where the two candidates are tied in a head-to-head matchup."

As we continue to not discover life and Earth is revealed to inhabit a more and more special place in the universe (and abiogensis remains unexplained), theories that predict humans are special will get an epistemic boost. These theories would be mostly religious, but simulation theory would become much more credible. A universe with only us in it would look extremely suspicious, wouldn't you agree?

I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast. — Relativist

I agree, but after a million/billion/trillion years of searching and no other life and no account of abiogenesis, what do you think the implications for abiogenesis would be? I think they would be profound.

What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it? — Relativist

It wouldn't strike you as odd if it turns out we're the only life in the universe? That wouldn't be an incredibly surprising result?

"Luck" would come in because it would mean that we inhabit one of the most (if not the most) special places in the observable universe: the only one where life is possible. That would mean we beat some really long odds. So far, our science is predicated on the notion that we're not in a really special or unique place in the cosmos. That would change.

What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?

Regarding your hypothetical, you seem to be suggesting that anything we haven't figured out within the next 10,000 years, should be deemed miraculous. Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations. — Relativist

OK, assume a million years have gone by and we've surveyed countless worlds and we're the only one with life. And we still have no idea how it happened. How would that change your beliefs?

It really does now seem entirely unreasonable to support Israel's ongoing violence here.

I really tried to stay on the fence, given there are legit grievances for both. But I am not able to continue to be so stoic. Israel is the aggressor now. They must stop. — AmadeusD

I agree. They have to start wrapping this up now.

here is no evidence of anything in the world that does NOT behave consistently with physics, so why should we assume otherwise?

I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's clear the natural world exists, and that its behavior is a entirely a consequence of laws of nature (approximated by physics). So I'd be very interested in hearing of something that disconfirms this. — Relativist

What if 10,000 years from now, we've surveyed millions of promising planets, have found no life anywhere else and still have no consensus on how it got started here? Would you just assume we got incredibly lucky somehow?

Here's a good article about the science community's reaction to panpsychism:
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/01/the-most-anti-science-belief-you-can-hold-is-that-science-is-a-religion/

It is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Easy to see why. — Mikie

America gave some security promises to Ukraine years ago if they would give up their nukes. That undoubtedly plays a factor in things.

A couple points: religions like Christianity give the masses a reason to behave: be good, and go to heaven; be bad and got to hell. I think there are a lot of people out there who would get up to a lot of mischief without the threat of hell looming over them.

Also, people don't need religion to be horrible to each other. Khmer Rouge, Stalinist Russia, North Korea, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc. If the Abrahamic religions never existed, things probably wouldn't be all that different.

None of us can know anything about what happens after death, so why even ask the question? But I suspect it's true.

You keep coming back until you learn that chasing idols (e.g., money, fame, power, substances, etc.) won't make you happy.

At some point almost any change is seen as better than continuing the status quo, at least "you try" something else. — boethius

And this is strange, since the economy is usually the top issue, and it's been humming along: stock market highs (most people have 401(k)'s, so they benefit from Wall Street doing well), record low unemployment, inflation back under control, 3+% GDP growth. But the majority of people hate this economy. Maybe because buying a house and renting have become so expensive. But it's hard to see what Trump would do to change that.

"As we did in our previous poll three months ago, we asked the respondents in this poll what
they thought of Hamas’ decision to launch the October the 7th offensive. A vast majority of
71%, compared to 72% in December 2023, say it was correct."
https://www.pcpsr.org/sites/default/files/Poll%2091%20English%20press%20release%2020%20March%202024.pdf

It's a good one. I hope one of these days Sam Harris has him on his show.

Would an idealist even care about being in the machine or not? After all, if this is all a dream, what does it matter if I dream I'm living a life of luxury vs dreaming I'm in a machine being fed an experience of living a life of luxury? It's all an illusion anyway.

He uses that one a lot.

No clue what you mean by that, but I have a clue that Amerigo Vespucci is rolling and gagging in his grave. — Lionino

You have no clue what I mean when I say 9/11 was a big factor in American policy and it's not all just about oil? What is confusing about that?

Let's not even forget that their war on terror (more like war for oil and for Israel) has indirectly caused heinous crimes in Europe. — Lionino

Oil has always played a big factor, but so did 9/11. It was a tremendous shock to the system. Much of America's policies, including torture, were to make sure another 9/11 didn't happen again. We didn't invade Afghanistan over oil.

The content of an item of knowledge can always be put into a proposition. — Banno

What's a good Searle article/paper that deals with that?

So can you tell us, without putting it in a proposition, something some animal knows? — Banno

How can I tell you anything without putting it in a proposition?

I have had many border collies. They do all sorts of propositional things. Language is not required. The body and the now contain the message. — Chet Hawkins

Maybe for animals close to our abilities who can almost think like us, but Salmon know when and where to return to the spawning grounds. What kinds of beliefs do they have? What are they like?

You both seem to balk at the paper/pencil thing, but what can a computer do that the pencil cannot? If you cannot answer that, then how is your denial of it justified? — noAxioms

I remember raging arguments at the International Skeptics Society years ago about whether enough monks writing down 1's and 0's could simulate consciousness, like the guy in the comic I posted moving rocks around and simulating this universe.

All 'knowledge' is only a set of beliefs. — Chet Hawkins

Animals know things, but what kinds of beliefs do they have? Certainly not propositional.

Trump won in 2016 while raising half the funds of Hillary, so I'm also just not sure that's a good proxy for odds of success. — boethius

Money is not the end-all-be-all, but it is an important factor, and candidates would rather have it than not.

You both seem to balk at the paper/pencil thing, but what can a computer do that the pencil cannot? If you cannot answer that, then how is your denial of it justified? — noAxioms

Have you ever seen this?

https://xkcd.com/505/

That means that yes, even the paper and pencil method, done to sufficient detail, would simulate a conscious human who would not obviously know he is being simulated. — noAxioms

I missed this somehow. This is absurd. You're not going to be able to simulate a conscious person/generate consciousness from paper and pencil. This is getting into Bernardo Kastrup territory: is my house's sanitation system conscious?
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2023/01/ai-wont-be-conscious-and-here-is-why.html

You're forgetting abortion. Since Dobbs, Democrats have overperformed in every special election. SCOTUS is taking up abortion again this Summer, and no matter what they decide, the mere fact of them sticking their noses in women's wombs will enrage and terrify them. Democrats also have a massive cash advantage. This is going to be a turnout election, and I would much rather be a Democrat candidate than Republican.

I think that sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously,
— RogueAI
I agree with you, though I would describe it as hand-waving. I agree also that sometimes it is best to roll with the punch if someone takes an idea seriously and I don't. I've done it myself. It may not result in them changing their mind, but it does allow some exploration and clarification. — Ludwig V

Sure. Simulation Theory is fascinating. I don't reject it right off the bat like "you're a p-zombie and don't know it". But I do think the central premise is, as you said, pretty hand-wavy.

.. that the thing simulated is conscious. — noAxioms

Which is to say that a collection of electronic switches is conscious when there's a sufficient number of them and they're being turned on and off in a certain order.

I know I sound redundant about that, but doesn't that sound pretty fantastiscal? That you could wire up a bunch of switches and get the subjective experience of eating a bag of potato chips to emerge from them?

Either human rights are universal and they apply to everybody or they're not and then they are no justification to treat Palestinians differently if they don't hold them in the same regard as you. — Benkei

People lose rights when they go down certain roads. From the UN "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." That sounds good, but what if you get convicted of a crime? There goes your right to liberty. What if a rapist goes after a woman who gets to the gun in her purse in time? There goes his right to life. People make stupid choices and lose their rights all the time. The Germans did it, the Japanese did it, and the Palestinians did it when they threw in their lot with Hamas.

Compared to what we did to Germany and Japan, which was totally justified, the Israeli's have been incredibly merciful and respectful of civilian lives.

As for Baldur's Gate, that (like any current game) doesn't simulate any mental processes, and even if it did, the simulated character would be conscious, but the game is no more conscious than is the universe. It merely contains conscious entities. A computer simulating a bat would not know what it is like to be a bat, but the simulated bat would. — noAxioms

You're right about Baldur's Gate, but ChatGPT certainly simulates mental processes (or seems to. More about that in a second). You can have a full on conversation with it. Do you think it might be conscious?

Now, when you drill down on "simulate mental processes", what does that ultimately mean? Computers are essentially collections of electronic switches, so simulating mental processes just means that electric switches XYZ... are turning off and on in order ABC...so if you get a lot of switches (or not so many switches but a whole lot of time) and flip them on and off in a certain order, voila! You get consciousness. I think that sounds like magic, but everyone else is taking it seriously, so you also have to take seriously the idea that it might not take a whole lot of switching operations to generate consciousness. Why should it? So it seems that if we're going to take simulation theory seriously, we should be equally open to the idea that some of the simulations we're running now are conscious. Maybe some of the "creatures" in Conway's Game of Life are conscious. Why not?

If you're open to the possibility that consciousness could emerge from a computer simulation, are you also open to the idea that consciousness is already emerging in the simulations we're currently running? IOW, if simulation theory is possibly, is my Baldur's Gate party maybe conscious?

Are you claiming that exchanging meaningful information about LED lights entails exchanging meaningful information about transition metals and photons and everything else that an LED is?
— RogueAI

No, I am claiming one is a collection of facts Y about the LED and the other a collection of facts X, you don't need X for Y neither Y for X, even though X would give you a deeper understanding of Y. — Lionino

But you are claiming that exchanging meaningful information about mental states entails exchanging meaningful information about brain states. Why aren't the facts about the mental states collection of facts Y and the facts about the brain states collections of facts X?