As long as a single human experiences suffering that outweighs all their enjoyment of life, then the value of human life has been disproven.

At this point, we can only choose to look the other way and manufacture a view of the world that does not include the suffering individual. To embrace this reality fully is to acknowledge that the human experiment has failed in the one dimension that matters to us. Pulling the plug is the only way to keep your integrity. You can continue living, but you will always be a traitor to your kind.

Are you saying that the universe is homogeneous? I think that's probably true. It is my understanding that matter is well distributed within the observable universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation is uniform in all directions. I think that is a scientific finding, not an underlying assumption. — Clarky

No I was speaking more of the difference between dreams and realty. Both can share any amount of detail or traits. But reality has the characteristic of consistency.

In my view, this sums it up:
[1] We live in a consistent universe that can be understood by humans.

[3] These substances behave in accordance with scientific principles, laws.
[4] Scientific laws are mathematical in nature. — Clarky

Those seem like rephrasings of the original point; an elaboration of how humans go about understanding, not new characteristics on their own.

Does consistency carry any weight? The metaphysical universe is extremely consistent, albeit unproven. Are "unproven" and "inconsistent" the same? Does one carry value over the other?

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that simply correlating X neural activity with Y subjective experience isn't the hard problem anymore. That is part of the easy problems. Rather, how is it that neural activity is one and the same as subjective experience is what is to be explained. — schopenhauer1

What a shame. Your own existence demanding explanation. Neural activity can be one and the same without your blessing. What made you ban your subjective experience from the realm of reality? When did it become something less? Something that needs an excuse in order to exist?

You haven't illustrated much about human existence. But you have have illustrated the endless tunnel of human guilt. Or maybe a lack of imagination? Which sin has your reality committed? Why has your existence incurred a debt so quickly? Rest assured, you can see whatever you need to for as long as you want. If nothing else, you are confident that your sensation of reality is untrustworthy.

The hard problem no longer exists without guilt. Who told you that the physical brain alone was not enough? How does the hard problem help you sleep at night? What more do you want to be?

These are easy questions of consciousness. Not the hard question. So you are not asking the right question(s). You can point all day to brain sizes, neural activity, and information processing, and you will still not get at it. How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1

But by looking somewhere else for an explanation, you have already disqualified neural activity as one of the candidates.

You pointed out that not all lifeforms experience consciousness. So I pointed out that something like a plant lacks the cluster of nerve cells that we call a brain.

What if we limited the discussion to humans? What specifically disqualifies a human's conscious experience from being explained entirely by neural activity?

How is it that this is one and the same as subjective experience.. not the correlations of the substrate. — schopenhauer1

Why can't the experience that we feel correlate to the substrate? The question assumes that conscious experience has already done something to distinguish itself apart from the substrate. What is that specific quality? (Other than to say it seems strange.) It's not that I don't see the question, but that I think the basis for asking the question is flawed.

You could say that consciousness is many steps removed from the raw input of our senses. So you are right to emphasize the distance between the two. But dramatically-different brain-activity still falls under the category of brain-activity. Unless there is a specific reason why it couldn't fall under that category?

Another way to look at it:
Is it right to assume that a system of awareness shouldn't experience consciousness? Isn't the side effect of consciousness unavoidable when you have a system juggling many different inputs and deciding between them? Chalmers' assumption that awareness should take place "in the dark" makes less sense the longer you think about it.

I think that even though for him a conscious self is just an artifact , a convenient function, he would still argue that humans operate on the basis of complex motivational systems that computers currently lack, but that eventually we will be able to construct machines with such systems , and those machines es will indeed be capable of ‘suffering’. — Joshs

I think that is a good way to illustrate the problem. Imagine a checklist of all the characteristics that pain has. What if you went down that list, one trait at a time, and programmed all those traits into an artificial being? Conventional wisdom would say "it doesn't matter, because that isn't real suffering". But to the one experiencing the suffering, it's not important how they arrived at this state of pain. If you trick something into believing it is experiencing pain, that is still pain as we know it.

Why does an organism with a brain have consciousness and not a single cell or a plant or a blade of grass. The kind of substance and the form of material doesn’t get at it. — schopenhauer1

As grass has proven, consciousness isn't strictly necessary for survival. So isn't a larger brain part of the substance and form? Couldn't it be possible that a brain past a certain size will inevitably spend more of its processing power on abstract thoughts (conscious sensations)? All the most simple and important functions could have been accomplished with a smaller neural network. In general, I would say you can estimate how much consciousness a creature possesses by looking at the size (or number of connections) of their brain.

I think that shows how nature considers abstract thought to be an expensive luxury of sorts. Does consciousness keep you alive a little longer? Yes. But is it worth the expense of more brain cells? No; according to the number of simpler organisms on this planet.

What if we discovered an animal that had twice as much processing power as a human. It would have to be using those larger neural-networks to accomplish something. I would expect such an animal to experience a deeper, more vivid sense of conscious existence compared to us.

Don't you think brain-size matters? Do you think it's physically possible for an animal to have a large brain, yet avoid experiencing any level of consciousness?

Consciousness came about through evolution. That doesn't explain why consciousness is the same thing as neural/biological activities. — schopenhauer1

Why do we need to separate consciousness from neural/biological activities? What characteristic prevents us from grouping them together in the same category?

It looks like you have misunderstood most of the metaphors I threw out there. I was illustrating a different concept than the one you were thinking about. Probably my fault. It gets blocked up in my mouth. I don't say it no good.

How does one actually get the point across why this is not an acceptable answer as far as the hard problem is concerned? Can this be seen as answering it, or is it just inadvertently answering an easier problem? If so, how to explain how it isn't quite getting at the hard problem? — schopenhauer1

It does answer the question, by pointing out that the hard problem doesn't exist to begin with.

Do you believe that the hard problem does exist, and that it isn't being addressed properly?

Ok, now I am really messed up. I cannot remember which threads I have been posting in. I miss the "MY THREADS" function. — Sir2u

I would like to see a feature where the threads that you have already posted in are highlighted somehow.

I deleted my last post to Down The Rabbit Hole because upon reading it myself, it sounded so rude. — L'éléphant

Shame the rest of the internet doesn't have a filter. We would be in a much better place.

My heart tells me God exists, P(G) = 100%

My mind tells me God doesn't exist P(G) = 0%

P(G) = The probability that God exists. — Agent Smith

I agree, everyone is an agnostic. Wish I could find a good excuse to believe in something.

The thing that I find basically materialism is always in danger of doing is committing the homunculus fallacy. — schopenhauer1

Fair enough. But which one of us is going down the rabbit-hole of the homunculus fallacy? Both of us?

The problem with subjectivity is trying to determine what part of the experience is about the object perceived vs the object doing the perceiving. — Harry Hindu

I'd say the human experience is 0% objective and 100% subjective. We are completely dependent on the information being supplied to us by our brain. That's why I consider objective reality to be an abstract idea. The best we can do, is to gain consensus about what is real by comparing our experience with others. But we can never truly prove that objective things actually exist. We strongly-suspect objectivity.

How does a "physical" brain create the feeling of visual depth perception? How do neurons generate the feeling of empty space between me and the other objects in my vicinity? The empty space is not made up of neurons. It is made up of information about location relative to my eyes. — Harry Hindu

The sensation of depth perception would be the "map" your brain has given you so that you can be aware of your position in 3D space and make split-second decisions related to that. It is not the neurons in your optic nerve, but it is the neurons in the conscious part of your brain. The information from your optic nerves has been compounded into a more-useful form of information that is intended to be used for navigating by your attention. You are the attention. You are the navigating being performed.

What is the roadblock you encounter with conscious experience? What is the exact point at which something leaves the domain of regular brain signals and enters the domain of something beyond that? What specific characteristic makes it too much to be regular brain activity?

Surely there could be arguments for and against god/s that adjust the likelihood we should put on their existence? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I think the problem is the specificity of the idea of god. It is a very common tradition on Earth and we are acclimated to thinking about the notion. But if you were to hear the idea for the first time, you would have a lot of questions. There are good reasons why we search religious texts looking for the accounts of witnesses.

If we have little/no information, then why would we jump to that specific conclusion?

Why is it a single being instead of millions of beings? Wouldn't a god be just as likely to champion evil concepts? Why does a god need to usher us into another existence right after we die?

We have already decided what we want these answers to be prior to asking the questions. Sounds less like an unbiased investigation and more like fulfilling our needs.

I assume then you have no problem with accepting theoretically literal 0% probability — Geerts

Sure. Just explaining why I could never trust a probability to be completely accurate. Sort of like acknowledging that probability can never give us a perfect view of events.

How do you approach then having 7 in a 6 sided dice which is mathematically considered as 0% — Geerts

For all practical purposes, I would treat 7 as an impossible outcome of a 6-sided dice. I would round the probability down to 0%. However, I would remember that what I perceive to be a 6-sided dice could actually be a 7-sided dice.

What about then paradoxes and clear illogical assumptions? Does your standpoint transcend boundaries of the logic? — Geerts

No, I'm not one of those people that stretches 0.000000001% into "anything could happen". I don't skew the math to serve my needs. I still treat 0.000000001% as 0%. But I place less faith into the math itself; always questioning whether the probability that I am using is the best assessment of a situation.

Indeed random pixel generator is another version of perhaps more popular Borges' Library of Babel or infinite monkey theorem examples which may be simpler to explain. — Geerts

Yes, the monkeys-with-typewriters might be a better example. The monkey would reintroduce uncertainty into the situation. Closer to the concept of random, if that's what you were aiming for. I was using the pixel generator to highlight a situation where we control all of the variables. 0% can exist with certainty inside of hypothetical/abstract situations where we control the definition of the situation.

But in those instances, we also no longer need to use probability. So maybe we should describe the situation in more straightforward terms, whenever possible. Just nitpicking I suppose.

Going back to the original bank-robbery example:
I think "unlikely" remains "unlikely" as long as you don't change the point of view. Unlikely only becomes 0% when you take away some of the information. The person walking past the innocent individual doesn't have access to the same information as the individual. They are both doing the math correctly, but the passerby has to calculate his probability with less knowledge about the situation.

I don't know what a view from outside of a head would look like. It's an impossibility. Third-person views are simulated first-person views. — Harry Hindu

"Simulated first-person views" sounds like a valid definition of the objective world. I've always thought of objectivity as an abstract model that we use to understand the world. Whatever the case, I'm just saying that two languages can describe the same thing; even if they use a different vocabulary. Subjectivity is the first language. Objectivity is another language.

My conscious experience is composed of shapes, colors, sounds, feelings, visual, auditory and tactile depth, etc. — Harry Hindu

The physical brain has developed an awareness-center so that it can obtain decision-making functionality. The shapes, color, sounds, etc would be the "summary" or "map" that our subconscious brain presents us with for the purpose of deciding. The "summary"/"map" is a secondary creation that does not represent the whole of the human brain with complete accuracy. The "summary"/"map" part is you.

There are two ways to look at this awareness-center in the brain:

• You could say that the awareness-center is obviously aware, in which case the awareness (conscious experience) is unremarkable and expected. From this viewpoint, the hard problem doesn't need to be asked.
• Or you could say that mere awareness doesn't constitute conscious experience. Following that viewpoint, conscious experience would be a side effect that mistakenly arises out of the awareness. In this case, we would be perceiving our consciousness to exist when it actually does not. Relative to the hard problem, you would say that our "in the dark" functionality only feels like it is illuminated.

Either way, conscious experience is the awareness-center doing its job.

I'm not sure if this makes sense. I can have a view of your body and it's behavior and deduce that you have experiences that are the causes of your behavior. But can I view my own view? Does that make sense? — Harry Hindu

I assume this was a rhetorical question, but I think "yes" is the answer. You can view your own view. Not with the default tools that mother nature provided, but I think it would be possible. Reminds me of a memorable scene from Westworld where a character views her own consciousness. Her reaction was disbelief paired with an overwhelming identity-crisis.

Your elaboration is appreciated. I think you're just making a generalization by saying zero percent probability never truly exists. Can you explain please? — Geerts

To put it another way: humans will never have the ability to see 0% probability in the universe. We would need absolute knowledge of everything in order to ensure that something is truly impossible. So what would be the reason that we should debate the existence of things that we know we can never see? It would be a useless breed of speculation.

I should also clarify that I only subscribe to the notion that probability exists in the natural world; the tangible things we see around us. When someone talks about probability in an abstract idea, I think they are really just using percentage "probabilities" as a means to summarize how the idea works. For example, saying "I programmed half the coin flips to be tails" is not the same as saying "there is a 50% chance that the coin flip could be tails". Every coin flip has been predetermined by the programmer, and you can calculate the outcome every time; if you really needed to. But it is just easier to be vague and say there is a 50% "chance".

Some degree of uncertainty must be present in order for a statement to be a true probability. And the tangible universe will always hold some uncertainty.

Going back to the example of the random pixel generator, we already know that outcome of an image is not possible. The pseudo-random numbers follow a certain pattern of distribution and a period. All the patterns will (mathematically) never have the opportunity to line up. So the image in a random pixel generator would be an example of absolute 0% probability. But again, this is an abstract idea where we control all the variables; so I don't consider it to be true example of probability (just a description of the functionality instead).

I would agree that the examples relating to crime are more about illustrating how we hold different amounts of information inside different viewpoints. Let's say I have a steady paycheck that buys me the things I need and want. Personally, I know that precludes me from the category of "might need to rob a bank today". But someone walking past me doesn't have information about my financial status. So in their mind (using all the information they have) it would be correct to label me as a potential bank robber. It can still be correct to have two different probabilities about the same event. But you should rank each probability by usefulness. The more relevant information we use to calculate a probability, the higher the usefulness of that probability.

• The worker must personally use the product they are making. If you don't eat hot dogs, then you shouldn't be working in the hot-dog factory.
• All jobs within the company rotate between design and labor. Each worker at an ice cream factory has a week where they walk off the assembly line and participate in the creation of new flavors.
• Workers cannot be given schedules or roles that are incompatible with society. For example, you wouldn't make a security guard work 11pm to 8am every night.
• All technology is public information, and workers can learn any skill by using public education. You don't have to go into debt while buying access to information.
• Treat other workers with respect and don't use a hierarchy. "You're the underling scum I respect the most" doesn't count as respecting a human. Out of respect comes the policy of splitting profits equally among all workers; no CEO overlords that get a free paycheck.

It's my understanding that vegans don't really care about what happens to animals; they just want to feel like they aren't responsible for what happens to animals.

Here's a random fact:
Less than 5% of meat consumers are willing to pay more for less animal cruelty. That number will be even lower after you become a vegan and leave the market for good.

In a sense the antipyschotic medication = disproof, an argument! — Agent Smith

Or proof that human beliefs do not depend entirely on logic. If someone is feeling intense sensations of anxiety, they will eventually have to rationalize it as the existence of something terrible somewhere. If someone is feeling intense sensations of euphoria, they will eventually have to rationalize it as the existence of something wonderful somewhere.

Logic can only go so far when it comes to inhibiting notions in our brain.

our ability for self-reflection is basically how I'd sum it up — schopenhauer1

I would agree that this is the fundamental flaw of modern man. Humans were given a will to survive, but not an explanation of why they needed to survive. A fear of death and the desire to consume other lifeforms implies that our life is somehow valuable among all others. That was perfectly fine in the early days of human existence; when we never questioned the notion.

With the invention of abstract thought, humans could now ask:

• "Who am I?"
• "Where am I?"
• "Why am I?"

The more we learn about our existence, the less we can justify our egomaniac's will to survive. The individual is missing from the objective world. We can see that there are 110 trillion mosquitos, but we have trouble explaining why there needs to be 110 trillion plus one. Why does the Earth's most-recent mosquito need to devote so much energy towards survival? Would anyone notice if that mosquito was missing?

We broke our primal urge to survive when we questioned it for the first time. What remained afterwards was a collection of excuses; some more useful than others. But we have yet to prove that any one of those excuses justifies our existence. If we had, there wouldn't still be such a heated debate about the topic.

as to why humanity simply didn't just perish — The Last Messiah Wikip

All who truly saw this flaw have perished. More who see it will die tomorrow. We are merely the survivors of this realization; each with our own unique set of excuses and distractions that keep us going. Each with our own delusion. Do the dead pity us?

Our ridiculous modern needs serve as a crutch for what was lost. It's hard to remember our dilemma when we are knee-deep in self-satisfaction. But nobody ever chose to be born. You could say we have been blackmailed into our modern needs. The patient needs to stay sedated or he will start attacking the nurses when he wakes up. We are stuck in it now. More sedation will always be useful to our cause. The next unnecessary thing you sell me will become vital to my survival.

Great answer from Tom Storm.

Personally, I think delusions only exist in past-tense, when you are talking about a first-person perspective. After receiving new information, a belief/truth can become recategorized as a delusion; at which point the person no longer subscribes to the notion that it is authentic.

If someone says "I know it's a delusion but I still believe it", then I would disagree that they mean it literally. Delusions remain invisible while you have them. The best you can do is to look for warning signs that something you believe is suspicious.

Should we ostracize people for having uncommon beliefs? Certainly not. But the other side of the coin is encouraging people to pursue their beliefs indefinitely without any reality checks. That would also be a poor choice; one that is inherently incompatible with the idea of humans living together.

Interesting thought. I would consider any communication not directed at a human/domesticated-animal to be a generic prayer. I would also imagine early humans walked a blurry line between god(s) and nature. It could be a desperate cry to nature itself, but I think that still falls under the description of "prayer".

I would also agree that humanity's relationship to Allah/Yahweh is essentially one of parental nature. Even though other gods may not have followed the same pattern.

“Beware lest there be anyone who robs you by means of his philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the elementary principles of the world, and not after Christ” -Paul, in Colossians 2

Do you want to read about ancient Greek ideas, or do you want to go to Heaven? If you weren't an ape-worshiping atheist, you would see that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. God has shown us that the apes can never truly be free. It's not like the philosophical ideas presented in the Bible have ever been proven not to be the word of God. If you start questioning why everything exists, it won't be long before you are convicted and poisoned with hemlock. Just think of all the people who have died while using philosophy.

The more you trust in Christ, the less you will be robbed in vain by these elementary principals of worldly men.

How is it that the mind that I experience as my own is the illusion but the brains that appear in my mind (like when I look at your brain scan while you are inside an MRI) when looking at your mental processes isn't an illusion? — Harry Hindu

I would say that both objective and subjective experiences are an authentic version of reality. One is an accurate assessment of what it looks like from outside the head, and one is an accurate assessment of what it looks like from inside the head.

Using your analogy, I would say that your conscious experience does show up on the MRI that the technician is looking at. Current medical technology is crude, low-resolution stuff. But imagine a snapshot of the brain that did capture everything. Every electrical signal jumping across each neuron.

It is like the relationship between a program and its code. Nothing will happen until you start running the code. And the entirety of the program is expressed somewhere in the code (physical brain). At the same time, the experience of interacting with the program (conscious experience) is not described directly anywhere in the code. The code never mentions "yellow", but it does say: red intensity is 255, green intensity is 255, and blue intensity is 0. Could you imagine such instructions leading anywhere else but "yellow"? "Yellow" is clearly nowhere to be found, and "yellow" is also undoubtedly the only possible result.

I think it is an error in logic to attempt to unify subjective experience with the objective world. Yes, all the underpinnings of conscious experience can be found there, but the objective account itself will not directly show you subjective experience. Two different views of the same object can both be 100% correct.

It doesn't get at the problem of explaining why I experience my mental processes differently than how I experience everyone else's. — Harry Hindu

I think you could experience someone else's consciousness (in the future) if you were methodical enough. But then you would also believe yourself to be that person, based on the memories you are experiencing. You would forget that you ever had a previous identity.

So maybe the greatest hurdle of conscious experience is finding a reliable way to prove your existence to someone else. But you are already thinking-therefore-you-are-ing on your own. If only someone else knew.

The Universe is definitely finite — Varde

I'm not aware of any force that is 100% unimpeded by other forces. This would mean that all forces eventually degrade when they hit something. These forces would include visible light, ultraviolet, infrared, etc.

There is not a single section of the night sky that is truly open. Some celestial bodies are bright because they are closer to the Earth. But even the blackness we see is comprised entirely of celestial bodies; they are just so far away that we detect no discernible amount of light. We are looking at an impermeable wall of obstructions with no way to see what is behind the wall.

Because these celestial bodies are (eventually) crowding out our view in every possible direction, we have no way to see or detect things that are very far away from Earth. This creates the illusion that the universe is finite and we are somewhere near the center.

I would still assume that the universe continues infinitely beyond what we can see, because I don't have a credible excuse for why it would come to an end. For all we know, the most interesting parts of the universe are right outside the limits of human detection. This could leave us ultimately ignorant about even the most basic and common characteristics of the universe.

:chin: — Agent Smith

I don't mind a cucumber, but I do wonder why people continue to buy certain boring-tasting plants. Would it be off-topic to turn a discussion about animal morality into a debate about the ethics of cauliflower? Why are we still eating cauliflower in 2022? We aren't ancient peasants struggling to procrastinate starvation for one more week.

But that is the question the hard problem shines a light on - how does electrical signals bounding around in our heads deceive our heads? In essence the brain is fooling itself into believing that it is not a brain. Why would it do that? What evolutionary problem would that solve (ie why would such a thing evolve in the first place)? — Harry Hindu

I would argue that the experience of consciousness does solve a practical problem. But it's mostly about making the brain more efficient, not about giving the brain an entirely new ability. I think that is why people find it confusing; it seems like a whole lot of work just to make the brain faster. Using conscious experience is like chalking the end of a pool stick; you could still hit the ball without it.

If your conscious brain making decisions is like walking the paths of a park, then conscious experience would be like looking at a map of the park. You could discover all the paths eventually if you walk around long enough, but the process goes a whole lot faster when you are using the map to make decisions. Some would also be quick to point out the deceitful nature of your strategy: "You fool, that is just a piece of paper with lines drawn on it; it is not actually the park!"

But does that mean it isn't useful?

Instead of trying to imagine why the human brain is using consciousness, it might be easier to imagine how difficult it would be without conscious experience.

Here's a test to see if vegans care about the welfare of animals: ask them how often they buy meat products.

If the answer is "never", then they are just looking for a way to avoid thinking about what is happening. A vegan concerned about animal rights will buy meat constantly and throw it in the garbage.

They realize that the meat industry won't go extinct until most of the population quits eating meat; and that isn't going to happen any time soon. This means that animals are being raised to be killed no matter what you do with their corpses. If they are already dead, then you should strive to buy the most humanely-raised meats available.

Doesn't matter if you end up eating them or not. The point is to influence the direction of the market. If everyone who cares about animal welfare stops participating, then the market will gravitate towards the people who don't give a damn how their hamburger was raised. That will undoubtedly end up being the worst situation possible for the animals themselves.

but our experiences themselves are not merely subjective. — Jackson

No, you are right, something has to be said for the consistent nature of the objective world. It wouldn't be so reliable if there was nothing really out there. But we never get to actually see the objective world. We will always be limited to our subjective viewpoint. We spend our entire lives making a really-good approximation of what is real, but we never have the chance to prove it undeniably.

I think subjectivity is everything. We have a special concept called objectivity that lets us reliably connect the dots between each of our own subjective experiences. Like ten people talking to each other in a room; trying to figure out who is the one hallucinating. Objectivity is arguably the most useful idea ever invented. But it is still an abstract idea. All we experience is the subjective. Even objectivity is just a skill being used inside our subjectivity.

The hard problem, if nothing else, is about highlighting a notion that is unexpected. We wouldn't be discussing it if the experience of consciousness was a boring and unnotable subject.

All forms of life respond to sensory information. A plant may reach around a corner when it senses sunlight. But the plant is unlikely to be conscious. An insect may scurry away when it senses you walking towards it. Is it feeling fear? Maybe not, but it is a better candidate for consciousness than the plant. What about the dog looking up at your face and wagging its tail? Seems like a plausible case of consciousness to me.

Life experiences sensory information with differing levels of nervous-system complexity. These nervous systems could be ranked on a gradual scale, with humans fancying themselves to be at the top. The more complex and extensive the nervous system is, the more likely it is to be conscious. So where along that continuum do you mark the first real consciousness? Sounds like an opinion that is up for debate. This could lead to the realization that there is no definition of consciousness. Consciousness merely describes a set of characteristic traits that a nervous system could have. The more boxes they check, the more conscious they are considered to be.

But why that special designation of "conscious"? Couldn't I just say: "My body has nerves."

What is our motive behind creating the superfluous "conscious" label?

In conversing with you on this forum, would I be hallucinating your existence? — Harry Hindu

I didn't mean literally hallucinating the content of your existence, I meant we could be deceived that our conscious experience is more than just electrical signals bouncing around in our heads: "Whatever this sensation of consciousness is that I'm experiencing, it is something more!"

Are you sure about that? Maybe it only seems that way from our point of view.

The hard problem is a strange question to answer. You acknowledge the existence of conscious experience by emphasizing how it isn't really there to begin with.

Interesting post. Always want to know more about how the universe works, but I don't subscribe to the religious belief that quantum mechanics is magical beyond all other physics. I think it's just more standard physics that we have yet to learn. Like Einstein said, don't get stumped by a lack of imagination. It makes sense somehow, even if we are struggling to understand it right now.

Realism and non-locality are compatible. If the wave function is real, it constitutes a causal, non-local fork, causing both — Jarjar

That's how I've always understood the quantum experiments. Like there is a misunderstanding about what exactly is being shown.

Walking in front of a mirror could constitute "spooky action at a distance". But I've never really had success teleporting myself with a mirror; even thought it appears that I have jumped across the room instantly.

that was hilarious when the dumb monkey threw the blasted cucumber at the scientist — Merkwurdichliebe

Ha yeah I like the part where he rattles the wall of his cage like a prisoner.

I did not catch the part when the monkey was thinking (about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done). Those thoughts never came close to occurring to me. I think the source of its anger was that it wanted to eat grapes over cucumber. I agree with the monkey. Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. — Merkwurdichliebe

I just mean abstract in the simplest sense of the word: seeing scenarios in its head that aren't actually taking place in the world around it.

Grapes are tastier than cucumbers. But I found it interesting how the monkey's eyes are darting back and forth from the human to the other monkey. The sense of concern. It seems to be experiencing jealousy.

Isn't jealousy an inherently ethical notion? How can you feel that you are getting less than you deserve, without first having ideas about what is deserved?

Seems to be about exactly when the monkey gets angry, and the extent of how quickly the anger escalates. Strikes me as more than dissatisfaction with cucumbers.

What I noticed intitially, was that there was no mention of ethics or morality in the entire video. So im curious where you made the connection that, anything the monkeys did, demonstrated their behavior to be of an ethical nature. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well, if the monkey was just experiencing sympathy (mirroring), then it might feel hunger when it realized another monkey was eating food; and I'm sure it did experience that. But it seems to take it one step further with the anger: "I should be fed if that monkey is being fed!"

Seems like an ethical situation when the monkey starts thinking about abstract ideas of what should or shouldn't be done. And if such thoughts aren't passing through its head, then what do you think is the source of its anger?

My point is that, at its core, ethics depends on and is based in a belief in ethical ideas, not in feelings like empathy. — Merkwurdichliebe

I would be curious to know what you thought of that video of a monkey getting outraged by unequal pay. Is the monkey just experiencing sympathy? Seems like he has some strong ethical opinions about what ought to be done. I doubt he's read the bible yet.


( https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg )
"Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Excerpt from Frans de Waal's TED Talk"

The question is what are thoughts composed of, or what forms do they take? What makes a thing a thought as opposed to not a thought? — Harry Hindu

A hard cutoff point for "thought" assumes that the definition shouldn't take place on a gradual scale. Instead of "thought" and "not a thought", couldn't it be defined as "more conscious" and "less conscious"? Why does a paramedic wave a flashlight in your eyes and ask you pointless questions? They are trying to measure how much consciousness you are currently experiencing.

All descriptions of mental activity from a third-person scientific perspective are actually first-person visual subjective descriptions of other's mental activity. — Harry Hindu

Which is why you could categorize it as taking place "in the dark". It's like a TV show that never gets more than one viewer. Maybe your subjective experience is not really a valid experience of the objective world. Maybe it's more like we are each hallucinating our own existence. In a way, death proves that consciousness never existed to begin with (unless your personal beliefs declare the exact opposite, of course).

You never experience your own mental activity the way you experience others' mental activity. — Harry Hindu

True these days. But in a distant future, maybe surgeons will be sewing brains together. Millions of engineered connections created between two cerebral cortices. All of sudden, you would have access to another person's memories. Maybe your inner dialogue could have a conversation with another inner dialogue. I never thought it would literally be possible to prove that the consciousness exists; but maybe that first silent discussion between two minds will be the last day we wonder if our conscious experience is real.

Thanks, I would agree with everything you said. But isn't there also a valuable continuum of progress between adequate-solution and inadequate-solution?

If you are making the point that people are overestimating their ability to manage resources; I would also agree to that. It's more about feeling like we have a solution than actually having a solution. Maybe that is a sort of crude coping mechanism for dealing with the intimidation of the situation we find ourselves in: make a little progress, deny reality. Make a little more progress the next day, deny reality again. It's hard to acknowledge the scope of the situation without getting frustrated.

Probability is never perfect, since it is based on what has happened historically. So I think the important question is: "How should we act in response to statistics?"

If something is statistically impossible, then we should act like it's never going to happen (even if it catches us by surprise later). If something is statistically unlikely to happen, then I think we should plan not to encounter it. But that doesn't mean we can't also acknowledge the possibility that something else could happen; at the same time.

I'm not saying that statistics should be revered as fortune-tellers. But it is, by definition, the best guess we have about what is going to happen. So you would need a specific reason to refute what probability says.

Q1) Zero percent probability never truly exists, because the statistic is based on imperfect information from the past. We could always discover new outcomes in the future, which would change our set of statistics.

Q2) There are right ways and wrong ways to calculate statistics. The probability of an event happening may not correspond to what actually happened, but the math could still be correct. 51% in your favor does not mean you are going to end up winning.

Q3) In the examples, I think event 2 has more-reliable calculations than event 2. Event 2 seems to take all the possible candidates into consideration. Event 1 only seems to take two candidates into consideration; even though there may be hundreds of people passing by the bank each day.

But I get the idea anyway: your understanding of the situation dictates how effective your probability calculations will be. We are constantly coming up with statistics for processes that we don't understand very well; and it's hard to realize our shortcomings until after the event. Doesn't mean that other statistics can't also be very reliable, though.