Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
When all your molecules change something stays the same, apparently not quite physical, yet surely is real, and therefore that is "virtual entity", by definition.
Fact No.01:
Personality, identity, ego, self, subject of experience... is a virtual entity.
* * *
Any doubt here can only be due to not understanding the words properly, and since I am only stating the obvious anyway...
Fact No.02:
Virtual, it means the opposite of actual while still physical in some way. In other words, still "real" just not actual, a kind of representation, or “information” most generally.
* * *
And here comes the punchline - the only explanation there can be, for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence. Necessary logical truth, by definition.
Fact No.03:
Qualia are simulated or virtual qualities, i.e. properties that exist not in actual space as such, but within virtual space, and can be decoded / perceived only indirectly.
* * *
Chinese room, inside a computer, looking at electrons and logic gates you can not see what program is running, just like you can not hear sounds, see colors or find consciousness by looking inside the brain.
Fact No.04:
Simulated / virtual entities and qualities are invisible from the 3rd person point of view in their actual form. To see what is really going on “inside” you have to put VR goggles on first, on top of those you're already wearing now - your head.
* * *
So, it turns out we do live in a simulation after all. Not created by gods, aliens, or evil robots, but created by humans themselves, only unbeknown to them and against their will, by their own brains.
No ghost, just another machine in the machine. Consciousness is a virtual reality construct, a simulation, virtual machine of sorts. But why does it feel like something to be such a virtual machine?
There is a mechanical description in complexity of emergent properties, and there is an ontological explanation in simplicity of the beginning of time, the universe, and everything. Somewhere in between, though, options are already constrained and only one choice actually means something rather than nothing, or many things.
a.) it’s how ‘quantum collapse’ feels from the inside
b.) it’s how ‘integrated information’ feels from the inside
c.) it’s how ‘the universe’ feels from the inside
d.) it’s how ‘soul or spirit’ feels from the inside
e.) it’s how ‘virtual reality’ feels from the inside
Fact No.01:
Personality, identity, ego, self, subject of experience... is a virtual entity.
* * *
Any doubt here can only be due to not understanding the words properly, and since I am only stating the obvious anyway...
Fact No.02:
Virtual, it means the opposite of actual while still physical in some way. In other words, still "real" just not actual, a kind of representation, or “information” most generally.
* * *
And here comes the punchline - the only explanation there can be, for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence. Necessary logical truth, by definition.
Fact No.03:
Qualia are simulated or virtual qualities, i.e. properties that exist not in actual space as such, but within virtual space, and can be decoded / perceived only indirectly.
* * *
Chinese room, inside a computer, looking at electrons and logic gates you can not see what program is running, just like you can not hear sounds, see colors or find consciousness by looking inside the brain.
Fact No.04:
Simulated / virtual entities and qualities are invisible from the 3rd person point of view in their actual form. To see what is really going on “inside” you have to put VR goggles on first, on top of those you're already wearing now - your head.
* * *
So, it turns out we do live in a simulation after all. Not created by gods, aliens, or evil robots, but created by humans themselves, only unbeknown to them and against their will, by their own brains.
No ghost, just another machine in the machine. Consciousness is a virtual reality construct, a simulation, virtual machine of sorts. But why does it feel like something to be such a virtual machine?
There is a mechanical description in complexity of emergent properties, and there is an ontological explanation in simplicity of the beginning of time, the universe, and everything. Somewhere in between, though, options are already constrained and only one choice actually means something rather than nothing, or many things.
a.) it’s how ‘quantum collapse’ feels from the inside
b.) it’s how ‘integrated information’ feels from the inside
c.) it’s how ‘the universe’ feels from the inside
d.) it’s how ‘soul or spirit’ feels from the inside
e.) it’s how ‘virtual reality’ feels from the inside
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
1. How do you know?
2. What is that "something" ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox )
Falsifiable by the fact that personality/identity/ego/conception of self/experiences change as one ages.
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
We know by comparing before and after of external appearance and internal memory. That something is usually referred to as identity or personality. More specifically it is a set of constraints, a kind of program. It’s a time-extended property of what molecules do rather than what molecules are at any instant in time.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:24 am 1. How do you know?
2. What is that "something" ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox )
Not identical, same in the sense of continuation, so that you more or less retain appearance and memory from day to day even if after ten years your appearance and memories may be quite different.Falsifiable by the fact that personality/identity/ego/conception of self/experiences change as one ages.
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
Personality changes. Identity is difficult to resolve metaphysically. In so far as you have an identity, it's your world line through spacetime.
Sure. I am on-board with behaviourism for most part, but it's difficult to capture behaviour in language.
So it sounds like you are describing what I call "world line"
Well, it's exactly what you are describing. Memory. The impression of what was.
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
Things are either objective or subjective. Personality, identity, ego, subject of experience are subjective. Self is objective.Zelebg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:11 am When all your molecules change something stays the same, apparently not quite physical, yet surely is real, and therefore that is "virtual entity", by definition.
Fact No.01:
Personality, identity, ego, self, subject of experience... is a virtual entity.
* * *
Any doubt here can only be due to not understanding the words properly, and since I am only stating the obvious anyway...
There is no difference between physical and virtual/subjective. Physical is the by-product of selves activities which can be experienced, what you call virtual.Zelebg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:11 am Fact No.02:
Virtual, it means the opposite of actual while still physical in some way. In other words, still "real" just not actual, a kind of representation, or “information” most generally.
* * *
And here comes the punchline - the only explanation there can be, for the existence of things that do not actually exist, such as unicorns or qualia, is virtual existence. Necessary logical truth, by definition.
Qualia is how physical appears to the self.Zelebg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:11 am Fact No.03:
Qualia are simulated or virtual qualities, i.e. properties that exist not in actual space as such, but within virtual space, and can be decoded / perceived only indirectly.
* * *
Chinese room, inside a computer, looking at electrons and logic gates you can not see what program is running, just like you can not hear sounds, see colors or find consciousness by looking inside the brain.
I have a thread on the brain.Zelebg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:11 am Fact No.04:
Simulated / virtual entities and qualities are invisible from the 3rd person point of view in their actual form. To see what is really going on “inside” you have to put VR goggles on first, on top of those you're already wearing now - your head.
* * *
So, it turns out we do live in a simulation after all. Not created by gods, aliens, or evil robots, but created by humans themselves, only unbeknown to them and against their will, by their own brains.
Ghost is real as body is real. I put them on the same category so-called physical. Ghost is however different from self. Consciousness is the ability of self (ability to experience).
We are not virtual machines.
There is no strong emergence.Zelebg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:11 am There is a mechanical description in complexity of emergent properties, and there is an ontological explanation in simplicity of the beginning of time, the universe, and everything. Somewhere in between, though, options are already constrained and only one choice actually means something rather than nothing, or many things.
Quantum collapse cannot be true. If physical is real when it is observed then how it can create self which is the experiencer.
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
In English, things either exist actually or virtually. Subjective / objective is a different category - mine is ontological statement, yours is epistemological. You managed to conflate and confuse three different concepts in one sentence. You are simply not speaking English.
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
You can not have a conversation without some grounding, and conversation can not be meaningful if the grounding is not common. My grounding is simply English dictionary, is there any other way?
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
Ontological statements are not always truth statements as they are not capable of potential falsification
Ones for example about God or the multiverse cannot be falsified and so are epistemologically invalid
But all epistemological statements are capable of potential falisfaction as they are automatically true
Ones for example about God or the multiverse cannot be falsified and so are epistemologically invalid
But all epistemological statements are capable of potential falisfaction as they are automatically true
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
I am explaining how things are in reality. Things are either objective or subjective. The only example of an objective thing is the mind. Subjective things are such as thought, vision, etc. Do you mind to tell us what do you mean with actual and virtual if they are not objective and subjective?Zelebg wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 3:57 pmIn English, things either exist actually or virtually. Subjective / objective is a different category - mine is ontological statement, yours is epistemological. You managed to conflate and confuse three different concepts in one sentence. You are simply not speaking English.
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
What do we need philosophy for if the thing we've been looking for all along (meaning) can be found in a dictionary?
There is another way. Developing shared meanings/vocabularies through interaction. Screw the dictionary.
I am pointing out to you a fact of human reasoning. You cannot utter a single ontological statement if you didn't know the words/concepts to express it.
The distinction between ontology/epistemology exists only in language, not in practice.
Re: Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts
Don't apologise. If you studied as much logic as I have you will understand why logic is not self-evident to anybody.
Not even you.
John Searle's famous quote goes like this: Syntax is not semantics.
He's right in that syntax and semantics are different things.
But he's wrong also, because syntax is actually more meaningful than semantics.
Go figure. We defined "semantics" wrong, and while studying the wrong definition meaning pulled a fast one on us.
The dwelling place of meaning is syntax; semantics is the home of illusion. --Ed Nelson
Here is some reading for you: On the meaning of logical rules I: syntax versus semantics