Mysteries of consciousness revealed by simple self-evident facts

[Zelebg]

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

[Skepdick]

When all your molecules change something stays the same

1. How do you know?
2. What is that "something" ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox )

Fact No.01:
Personality, identity, ego, self, subject of experience... is a virtual entity.

Falsifiable by the fact that personality/identity/ego/conception of self/experiences change as one ages.

[Zelebg]

1. How do you know?
2. What is that "something" ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox )

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.

Falsifiable by the fact that personality/identity/ego/conception of self/experiences change as one ages.

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.

[Skepdick]

We know by comparing before and after of external appearance and internal memory. That something is usually referred to as identity or personality.

Personality changes. Identity is difficult to resolve metaphysically. In so far as you have an identity, it's your world line through spacetime.

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.

Sure. I am on-board with behaviourism for most part, but it's difficult to capture behaviour in language.

Not identical, same in the sense of continuation,

So it sounds like you are describing what I call "world line"

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.

Well, it's exactly what you are describing. Memory. The impression of what was.

[bahman]

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...

Things are either objective or subjective. Personality, identity, ego, subject of experience are subjective. Self is objective.

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.

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.

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.

Qualia is how physical appears to the self.

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.

I have a thread on the brain.

No ghost, just another machine in the machine. Consciousness is a virtual reality construct, a simulation, virtual machine of sorts.

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).

But why does it feel like something to be such a virtual machine?

We are not virtual machines.

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.

There is no strong emergence.

a.) it’s how ‘quantum collapse’ feels from the inside

Quantum collapse cannot be true. If physical is real when it is observed then how it can create self which is the experiencer.

[Zelebg]

There is no difference between physical and virtual/subjective.

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.

[Skepdick]

mine is ontological statement, yours is epistemological.

Ontology is epistemology.

You can't say anything ontological if you don't know about it.

[Zelebg]

Ontology is epistemology.

You can't say anything ontological if you don't know about it.

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?

[surreptitious57]

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

[bahman]

There is no difference between physical and virtual/subjective.

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.

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?

[Skepdick]

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?

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.

[Zelebg]

I am pointing out to you a fact of human reasoning.

I’m pointing to four simple self-evident facts.

[Skepdick]

I’m pointing to four simple self-evident facts.

And I am pointing out that what is "self-evident" to you is not a fact. It's an assumption.

[Zelebg]

And I am pointing out that what is "self-evident" to you is not a fact. It's an assumption.

It's a matter of semantics, facts by definition. But of course, logic is not self-evident to everyone. Sorry.

[Skepdick]

It's a matter of semantics, facts by definition. But of course, logic is not self-evident to everyone. Sorry.

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