On Thu, Sep 28, 2023, 9:53 AM John Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023, at 11:41 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > > So like many scientists, they look for evidence that supports their > theories instead of evidence that refutes them. > > > "In formulating their theories, “most physicists think about experiments,” > he said. “I think they should be thinking, ‘Is my theory compatible with > consciousness?’—because we know that’s real.”" > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-consciousness-part-of-the-fabric-of-the-universe/ > To me the article says a bunch of philosophers got together to discuss consciousness and couldn't agree on anything. They use all 3 meanings of the word as if they were the same. They discuss neural correlates (medical consciousness), whether a fish can feel pain (ethical consciousness) and whether photons are conscious in the panpsychic model (phenomenal consciousness) where everything is conscious, or physicalism where consciousness arises in brains by some mysterious process. There is of course no evidence for these or any other theories about this thing which we defined to be untestable. How do we know it is real? Everyone believes so because it is hard wired into our DNA. If you didn't think you were conscious then you would have fewer offspring. Stop confusing belief with truth. A brain cannot model itself. > > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T206dd0e37a9e7407-Mc65c00e7e9331e5b69bce1d0> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T206dd0e37a9e7407-Ma2a9d694f9ac3036de5eef6a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
