I think a conscious rock-shuffling device is absurd..

That is not thinking, it is ignoring.

1. The only explanation there is for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence.

2. By looking at moving electrons and logic gates in the CPU you will not see what program computer is running, just like you can not see colors by looking inside the brain.

3. Virtual entities and ther qualities are invisible from the 3rd person point of view. To see what is really going on you have to put VR goggles on first, on top of those you're already wearing now - your head.

A theory that allows for the possibility that a universe of conscious beings could be simulated by moving physical rocks around is a theory that is ludicrous. I just don't know how you could even entertain that as a possibility. I think it's so obvious you can't simulate a universe of conscious beings by moving rocks around, any theory that says you can has catastrophically failed.

By looking at moving electrons and logic gates in the CPU you will not see what program computer is running, just like you can not see consciousness or colors by looking inside the brain.

Virtual entities are invisible from the 3rd person point of view. To see what is really going on you have to put VR goggles on first, on top of those you're already wearing now, which is your head.

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid move in philosophy. If materialism entails that consciousness can arise from people passing notes around with 1's and 0's written on them, I think we're very close to an "absurdity".

Virtual reality interactions do not reduce to actual physical interactions. In any case though, shuffling molecules and passing electrons from point A to point B is exactly what the brain is doing too, or is that supposed to be different somehow?

You are looking at the wrong level of abstraction. A living cell also looks ridiculous if you look at the equation of motion for magnetic and electric fields. Virtual reality simulation, on the causally effective level of abstraction, the one that actually matters, is not about underlying mechanics, but about interaction between virtual entities according to their virtual properties.

But emergentism is so problematic that we should reject it.

Consciousness is not a simple emergent phenomena like liquidity, but a higher level emergence in a completely new ontological substrate that emerged within the nervous system, namely the virtual space of simulated reality, dreams and imagination, the realm of abstraction where potentially exist almost unlimited kinds of novel and irreducible entities, properties and interactions.

Are you saying electrons and atoms in actual human beings are not taking paths of least resistance?

A simulation of a thing isn't the same as the thing.

Sure, simulated thing is a separate thing on its own, therefore it is alive all by itself. Is that your point?

No. You just made my point.

And what is your point?

It's clear what you are hinting at, but it’s not clear what the actual argument is supposed to be. Is there anything more for a cell to be alive other than this molecule goes here and that molecule goes there? Simulated gravity and EM attraction / repulsion does not work on actual objects, but it works on simulated objects, i.e. we can simulate all about “this thing goes there and that thing goes here”. So what would be missing?

If the environment is simulated then anything inside would necessarily be simulated.

Simulated and alive.

Does simulated gravity attract nearby bowling balls?

Does actual gravity attract simulated bowling balls?

It's fascinating, although I expected a story about visual cortex area V1.

Sounds like you might know such information like what is the size of perceived pixels or their molecular representations and how many of them are there. In other words, what is the resolution of the human inner display?

Do colours exist? Yep.

Therefore there are not really any colours.

Can you phrase the question so it is clear it is about the second answer?

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.

What exactly about "contact point with reality" and "based on empirical observation" makes you confused?

If you claim something is a wave then the explanation must address what is that waves, and how it relates to anything about empirical reality. Otherwise it’s meaningless assertion. Do you understand?

Holographic phased standing wave patterns, eh? Your "theory" has no contact point with reality. Instead of any empirical observation it's based on hallucination. So you're insane, but my point was that even if it was true, in whatever sense, it still does not explain anything like "integrated information" or "quantum collapse" does not explain anything even if it was true.

In short, as I've said before, I’m hypothesizing that qualia/experience consciousness is like the resonant sound you hear when you thump a container, which resonant sound (e.g., holographic phased standing wave patterns) richly characterizes not only the shape of the container but its material parameters, this resonant sound waves is effectively coherently ‘aware’ of its whole system in a way that you never could be if you separately analyzed all the causal molecules and connections that form the container and the propagation medium the way that Integrated Information Theory suggests is consciousness; thus, at least one reason why (IMHO) their model is devoid of the qualia/experience.

I see, just like in Star Trek.

I've laid out a basic framework model for it, but apparently on your deaf ears, which has you making fun by missing the point.

I'm listening, but you are not saying anything except meaningless assertions and empty phrases. Go ahead, define "resonant wave condition".

nope. Nothing to do with stuff like that.

No? Then it has to do with, what? God? Is this a guessing game, you refuse to say?

obvious qualia is virtual, like our consciousness. virtual does not mean something is not real, at least to someone, somewhere...

I never said virtual is not real. Virtual is not actual, like simulated alligator is virtual and actual alligator is actual, but both are real, both are physical, both are material. The difference is only in morphology and dynamics of constituting elements. So yes, virtual does not mean ‘not real’, but more importantly, it implies ‘computation’. Got it?

I was making fun of your phrases that sound like they mean something, but ultimately they can only refer to QM or attraction and repulsion of EM fields - distance, mass, velocity, stuff like that. There is nowhere to go from there, that is the bottom. Naming things is not explaining, it’s not even describing.

resonant wave conditions like what I generally have in mind

Resonant wave conditions? You can call it “ghost”, or “black box condition”, it does not explain anything. Look, qualia either exists actually or virtually, and we know it does not exist actually. Ok?

I am modeling the qualia/experience consciousness as a resonant condition that does not actually exist on its own but only emerges as the waves in the container sense the boundary conditions and propagation media landscape to form something you can think of like a standing wave which represents the wave states of the whole system.

Resonant condition, waves in the container, boundary conditions, propagation media landscape, standing wave, wave states. There is no explanation in those words, you might as well call it 'quantum collapse', 'magnetic field density distribution', 'holographic diffraction interaction', 'self-looping attractor constraints', 'integrated information', 'mathematical pattern’, or whatever, but it can only make sense if you call it by its true name: “program”, because while all the other words above have reached the bottom of reductionism, computation alone stands at the door to a realm of increasing complexities and almost unlimited possibilities. Look, it sounds true, it smells true, you know it’s true, admit it!!

This is very insightful, is this your idea?

Generally no, but I do think I found some ways to explain it better, at least to myself. For example, I came up with the following statement with which I converted myself from being agnostic to finally deciding: the only explanation we know of, for the existence of things that do not actually exist (such as unicorns or qualia), is virtual existence.

Anyway, here is this guy, Joshua Fields, for example:


Also, when Giulio Tononi speaks of ‘integrated information’, what else can it be than a kind of program? When Terrence Deacon speaks of interaction between ‘constraints’ defining biological and mental “self”, what are the constraints if not a kind of program? When Max Tegmark speaks of ‘mathematical patterns’, what else can it be than a kind of algorithm? When dualists say soul is not material, they are kind of right, it’s virtual. Panpsychism is kind of right too, Earth or Universe could indeed be conscious if we are all “computer hardware” for the simulation of some higher virtual reality…

Virtual consciousness kind of "unites", or makes more sense of other theories than they can do for themselves, and has more to say where they remain mute. It does not mean it's true, but it is the only path to at least somewhat satisfying explanation.

Maybe I misinterpret Sam's position, but I don't understand your interpretation either - could you elaborate? We have phenomenal subjective experience but ultimately only as passive observers (and not as 'active' observers with complete free will)?

Sam Harris and free will argument have nothing to do with qualia and zombie argument.

I think any account of consciousness arising from severally non-conscious stuff is conceptually doomed.

Yes, I think you're right about that.

That logic is shown to be wrong by non-living things giving rise to living things, or non liquid things giving rise to liquid things, for example.

..more fruitful ways to think about consciousness, namely panpsychism.

Panpsychism is vague, ambiguous, untestable, without even possibility of ever giving any prediction, confirmation or explanation.

Panpsychism is as useful as religion, and it is worse mysterianism than mysterianism itself. It’s not even a potential solution, it’s saying I give up and I’m gone fishing, because replacing one mystery with another is not a logical proposition to begin with.

What do you find fruitful about it?

What is it about turning enough switches on and off in a certain way that gives rise to consciousness?

It’s not about switches, it’s about interaction between virtual entities.

Or can you have consciousness arise from really strange collections of things? Say, for example, a bunch of ropes and pulleys?

Possibly, unless speed / synchronicity is at issue, in which case serial computation or too slow execution might be inadequate for the simulation of conscious experience.

Can Consciousness be Simulated?

Not only it can be simulated, there is no other substrate in which consciousnes can exist but virtual.

How would it walk if it thought nothing? How would it avoid damaging itself if it felt nothing?

Like robots and zombies, with varying success.

Sam Harris believes free will is an illusion. If he's right, would that mean we are all philosophical zombies?

No, Sam’s position is that we do have epiphenomenal consciousness, that is phenomenal subjective experience without any causal effect, just passive observers.

Zombies argument is about this ‘subjective experience’ or qualia, it is not about free will. I guess most people do not even consider such a zombie as a possible candidate for free will until it’s certain it is conscious first. On the other hand, I’d say free will is a separate issue and does not require sentience.

Sam Harris believes free will is an illusion. If he's right, would that mean we are all philosophical zombies?

Except “Sam Harris” each of those words and phrases can be interpreted in many ways, resulting in many different opinions. People present different answers thinking they disagree, when mostly they are not even answering the same question.

For example, his argument is that we are not conscious of our decisions, rather than saying anything about whether they are free or not. And this is just one little branch among many others where people can split opinions about the very question, before any answer could even be attempted.

This is where you and I differ, because I consider potential and possible existence as two types of ‘immaterial’ existence, and what is observable/measurable as a reduction of these aspects of reality. The uncertainty or relativity with which we must consider this ‘immaterial’ existence, and its irreducibility to the apparent certainty or ‘objectivity’ of the physical/material does not preclude its existence. I’m not saying that ghosts or souls are real as such, but that the subjective experiences expressed as ‘ghost’ or ‘soul’ have a potential or at least possible existence that matters to a comprehensive understanding of reality.

I don’t see any difference between possible and potential, but in any case unknown event or entity from the future holds no explanation about objects and their properties in the past and present time.

Even possible future events have to have their potential embedded in the physical state of matter of the past. You can not define anything, not even a potential, with absolutely nothing. Future possibility has to lie in something, and there is no other something but physical and material something, because everything else is nothing by definition.

Is consciousness located in the brain?

Consciousness is located in the whole body like a computer program is located all over computer’s integrated components, connecting wires and peripherals it uses. Obviously some parts are more relevant than others, like hand / mouse vs. brain / cpu.

However, you could say that a computer program is really only actualised on the display screen, for example, and that it is the display then where a program is actually located. And that would be more in line with asking “where is visual qualia located in the brain”, that I think is better, more specific question, which includes more interesting questions such as how is it visual qualia arranged in the brain-space, how big are individual pixels, and what are the colors represented with.

When you say ‘physically’, do you mean in relation to what is observable/measurable or in relation to physics/chemistry/biology?

Physical is what is observable / measurable in principle, in a sense that if ghost or souls can be observed / measured they too would automatically then fall into physical category. Existing and being physical / material is one and same thing, i.e. there is no such thing as immaterial existence by definition. I consider chemistry / biology to be physical / material assuming we can at least in principle or even just indirectly measure or observe everything about it.

Can you say is color a property of something, is it a substance of some kind, maybe entity or object, or whatever the most general category colors belong to?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

So you think that atoms do "give rise" to language and consciousness?

Yes. Why do you ask, what do you think?

The problem with all your posts is that they contain many unstated premisses, which, going on the evidence of what you do actually say are quite contentious and problematical in themselves.

So you say, can you show? Pick one issue, quote me, and actually point out what you think is the problem.

Searle's argument.