Every time we think it's aliens, it's never aliens.

That doesn't change the fact that Nader was a decisive factor that led to Gore's defeat. No Nader, Gore most likely wins.

There were a lot of factors that led to Gore losing, but had Nader not run, Gore probably would have won Florida handily.

I remember when Ralph Nader, who I admire, cost Gore the election, and then we had the Iraq war. West needs to sit this one out.

Why do you think there are four black CEO's in the Fortune 500? — NOS4A2

Because there are still black people alive who remember when de jure discrimination existed (separate but equal). Racism is still alive and well in 2023. Your explanation that of a lack of talent causes black people to be underrepresented in the Fortune 500 by an order of magnitude is absurd, and I think you know that.

There are four black CEO's in the Fortune 500. Why do you think that it is?

That's true, but what would we do differently (in regards to gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating)?

Everyone knows the dangers of gambling, drinking, smoking and over-eating. The marketing and lying about opioids should have resulted in a lot of people going to jail for a long time. People trust their doctors, and their doctors and the medical industry totally failed them. I would say the pharmaceutical and quasi-legal recreational drug business needs to be heavily regulated. Social media too, as far as kids are concerned.

I have a philosophy degree, but you need to dumb it down for me. I have trouble understanding that. My position is that we can know a few things about reality. Cartesian truths. Mind, thought and consciousness exist. We can't be wrong about that.

I hope so, but this stupid country is totally capable of electing Trump again.

a language presence of inner auditory qualities — Astrophel

When you visualize a sunset, how is that a "language presence of inner auditory qualities"?

Aren't you as certain that thinking/mind/thought exists as you are about the truths of logic?

Hi, Rogue AI

For what it's worth, I assure you that I'll continue to live my life as if I'm in a real world, not a simulation.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. — Torus34

Can you address the point I made about consciousness emerging from switching actions? Do you think that's possible?

Suppose there is a scientist alive today who fully understands how consciousness emerges in the brain.

Do you think that you would be able to understand that scientist's explanation without having studied the relevant science yourself?

A more accurate and nuanced statement than yours above is that scientists have developed and are continuing to develop more accurate understanding of aspects of how consciousness emerges from brains. Criticisms arising out of anti-scientific ignorance don't even reach the threshold of mildly interesting after awhile. — wonderer1

I posted just this sort of thing the other day: suppose aliens or an advanced machine intelligence figured out consciousness. Would we be able to understand the explanation, or at least be able to ask a bunch of questions that would give us the gist of the answer? For example, we could ask the aliens/machine intelligence "Does consciousness come from matter? Does the type of matter make any difference? Is consciousness related to information processing?" Etc.

In short, yes, I think we could understand a great deal about the explanation. If that's the case, there's nothing stopping us from figuring out those answers ourselves, so I think mysterianism is a copout.

*sigh!* OK goddoneit — Vera Mont

Pointing out materialism/physicalism's failure to explain consciousness doesn't entail "goddoneit". Mysterianism has been gaining in popularity lately.

Obviously, my point is that science hasn't explained how consciousness/minds come from matter.

"Decades-long bet on consciousness ends — and it’s philosopher 1, neuroscientist 0"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8

If science can't explain something as fundamental as our own experience, why should we think it can explain whether consciousness can arise from computers? Why should we even entertain the notion that we're living in a simulation?

process that information and turn into an experience — Vera Mont

How does the information get "turned into an experience"?

Keep in mind that "one thinking mind" is a language construct. How, it may be asked, did one get this? And where does its authority find its basis? — Astrophel

"If A then B; A, therefore B" is also a language construct. Are you a radical skeptic?

"I think" is epistemic. — Astrophel

Isn't the following necessarily true: there exists at least one thinking mind?

Not quite true (e.g. vide T. Metzinger), but even if you're right, philosophy has only folk fantasy (i.e. folk psychology), not even an "idea". — 180 Proof

I don't want to derail the thread. Just pointing out some problems with Simulation Theory. Imo, they're insurmountable, but who knows.

At least in h. sapiens it does. — 180 Proof

Science has no idea how brains produce consciousness. You would think, after all this time, we would have some idea, but the theories are all over the place. Eventually, people are going to question basic assumptions, such as "matter is real" and "brains cause consciousness".

To tie this back to the OP, if there's no explanation for how our own brains make us conscious, why should we even consider the idea that consciousness can come from an entirely different substrate? Why is that even taken seriously? Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?

"For starters, what difference would such a "possibility" make to us ontologically, existentially or pragmatically?"

If you knew for certain you were in a simulation, wouldn't you want to try and get in touch with the simulation creator?

How are "conscious experiences" "created" without "nerve impulses"? — 180 Proof

Consciousness requires nerve impulses??? No possibility of machine consciousness? No possibility that this is a simulation?

Yes, that's pretty much how nerve impulses work. — Vera Mont

How do nerve impulses create conscious experiences?

Do you think your consciousness and mind can be reduced to a bunch of switching actions? Can the pain of a stubbed toe emerge from flipping enough light switches on and off in some pattern? To me, these possibilities do not merit consideration, so we are not living in a simulation.

Why do you prefer Trump over DeSantis?

Why?

Wouldn't you rather DeSantis be the nominee? He's ideologically on the far right, and doesn't have any of the baggage Trump has.

I agree. I think it's significant that a prestigious journal is taking it seriously.

:up:

I posted a link a couple posts above you.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02120-8

Did you see Chalmers won a bet on consciousness?

It seems to me that consciousness requires a number of neurons well above the number needed to keep the animal alive. — BC

Why? Isn't that like saying you need a lot of hydrogen and oxygen before you get liquid water to emerge?

Are you a computationalist? And again, the same question: why is a huge amount of computations necessary for consciousness? A system of a million neurons does a lot of computations. Why isn't it conscious? What amount of computations is required?

Why does the amount of neurons matter? If consciousness is an emergent property, shouldn't it emerge when there are a million neurons present?

Would this article have been published 50 years ago by a reputable science magazine?

Be careful with that stuff (I assume it's weed). I had a horrible trip awhile back that led to depersonalization. Took me awhile to come back from it (and a stint on antidepressants).

Would you rather DeSantis was the GOP nominee?

Suppose I sit down with a bunch of strangers at a poker game. The dealer deals himself a full house. Then he deals himself four of a kind. Then a royal flush. Then another royal flush. What does your theory say about when I should leave the table?

I remember I was terrified of my older sister playing her Ozzy Osbourne record backwards.