And yet,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/03/12/eia-confirms-historic-us-oil-production-record/?sh=6fcd85824048

No matter who we have as president, if it's valuable, it's going to be dug up and sold or used. Biden can chip away at the problem at the margins and push for more EV's and fewer gas stoves, but that is just putting a finger in the climate dike. Gas went up a buck a gallon in the last four years, and there will howls of protest as if the world was coming to an end. People aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary for real solutions.

https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/chinese-genocide-of-uyghurs-in-xinjiang-continues

If someone believes a simulation of a working brain is conscious, would this be a fairly accurate description of what the person believes: "to say that a simulation of a working brain is conscious is to say a collection of electronic switches is conscious. That if you take enough switches, run an electric current through them, and turn them on and off in a certain way, the pain of stubbing a toe will emerge."

ChatGPT
Yes, that description captures the essence of the belief that a simulation of a working brain could be conscious. It implies that consciousness arises from the complex interactions of physical components, such as electronic switches in the case of a simulation, rather than from some non-physical or supernatural source. This perspective aligns with the idea that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the arrangement and activity of the underlying components, similar to how the experience of pain emerges from the activity of neurons in a biological brain.

So a biological brain, a silicon brain, or a computer simulation of a biological or silicon brain, would all experience consciousness. — Malcolm Lett

This thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I'll post the usual stuff I post when someone claims this.

If a simulation is conscious, then that means a collection of electronic switches is conscious. That is to say that if you take enough switches, run an electric current through them, and turn them on and off in a certain way, the pain of stubbing a toe will emerge.

Isn't this already, prima facie, absurd?

Is naturalism really more parsimonious than, say, idealism? Take the Many World Interpretation of QM. Kastrup arguers that countless universes popping into existence all the time can hardly be called "parsimonious". Do you think he has a point?

Does philosophy hold aloof from science within an academic fortress of abstract math and logic? — ucarr

And common sense. After all, it was a philosopher who recently won a famous bet against a scientist, not the other way around.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-25-year-old-bet-about-consciousness-has-finally-been-settled/

Panpsychism is on the rise, people are taking plant consciousness seriously, scientists are being called out by their colleagues for pushing integrated information pseudoscience...Philosophy has the upper hand these days when it comes to consciousness.

Then you’re simply not paying attention. Take one example:

Biden: “Climate change is a problem we have to address.” Passes biggest climate bill in history — the IRA.

Trump: “Climate change is a Chinese hoax.”

You: “I see no difference.”

Sorry, but it’s sheer idiocy. You may not like either choice— neither do I — but let’s try to face reality. The whole “no difference between parties, they’re all corrupt” line is about 20 years out of date. Now it’s primarily used by those who know exactly nothing about either party, or their policies.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice. — Mikie

The push from the Biden Admin for EV's and emission standards is also night and day compared to what a GOP administration would be doing/will do.

What does your theory have to say about computer consciousness? Are conscious computers possible? Are there any conscious computers right now? How would you test for computer consciousness?

Science can't do ethics.

I don't know. Maybe a more knowledgeable person could chime in.

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.