Chalmer's solution to the hard problem

[Magical Realist]

1) Consciousness is fundamental like mass and charge and spacetime.

2) Consciousness is universal. It is everywhere and in everything. (panpsychism).

Find out what he means in this 18 minute TED talk. You can jump ahead to minute 9.00 to skip over his description of the hard and easy problems of consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ

[Ostronomos]

A more peripheral view of consciousness is required to accommodate it into a scientifically oriented framework. Such a view would be universal consciousness. Not fundamentalism. As matter can generate mind and a single human mind can also generate mind. When I say mind I refer to a universal mind. The available data is scarce and so logic must be used in place of evidence to understand this conundrum.

[C C]

Since Chalmers brings up IIT... Or for those who wonder what it would be like to hear Arnold Schwarzenegger discuss consciousness...

Cristof Koch finally gets around to Giulio Tononi's integrated information theory at around the 38 to 39 minute mark on this video: https://youtu.be/LGd8p-GSLgY

~

[Ostronomos]

MR,

can you post the above video in sciforums to see if it can be challenged by that crowd?

[C C]

MR, can you post the above video in sciforums to see if it can be challenged by that crowd?

If a speaker does not expose "conjuring by computation", "conjuring by functional relationships depicted by a schematic diagram", or "brute emergence in general" as merely being another shade of dualism or mathematical Platonism ... Then skeptics of incremental and deeper origins will just appeal to, as well as take refuge under, that sort camouflage. That's in addition to those who deny there is any manifested content to consciousness at all -- that experience is an illusion of linguistic, descriptive, or conceptual processes without providing any account of how the latter has the power to do that; or as to how "illusion" does not normally entail a manifestation to begin with (part of what one is denying), regardless of whether the content represents something fictional or real.

Some theorists have argued that if the "consciousness-is-computation" version of computationalism and mathematical realism (or radical mathematical Platonism) are true then consciousnesses is computation, which in principle is platform independent and thus admits of simulation. This argument states that a "Platonic realm" or ultimate ensemble would contain every algorithm, including those which implement consciousness. Hans Moravec has explored the simulation hypothesis and has argued for a kind of mathematical Platonism according to which every object (including, for example, a stone) can be regarded as implementing every possible computation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_...ationalism

~

[Ostronomos]

MR, can you post the above video in sciforums to see if it can be challenged by that crowd?

If a speaker does not expose "conjuring by computation", "conjuring by functional relationships depicted by a schematic diagram", or "brute emergence in general" as merely being another shade of dualism or mathematical Platonism ... Then skeptics of incremental and deeper origins will just appeal to, as well as take refuge under, that sort camouflage. That's in addition to those who deny there is any manifested content to consciousness at all -- that experience is an illusion of linguistic, descriptive, or conceptual processes without providing any account of how the latter has the power to do that; or as to how "illusion" does not normally entail a manifestation to begin with (part of what one is denying), regardless of whether the content represents something fictional or real.

Some theorists have argued that if the "consciousness-is-computation" version of computationalism and mathematical realism (or radical mathematical Platonism) are true then consciousnesses is computation, which in principle is platform independent and thus admits of simulation. This argument states that a "Platonic realm" or ultimate ensemble would contain every algorithm, including those which implement consciousness. Hans Moravec has explored the simulation hypothesis and has argued for a kind of mathematical Platonism according to which every object (including, for example, a stone) can be regarded as implementing every possible computation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_...ationalism

~

In regards to what you said before the quote, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions right away although the discussion can go in many directions. Mathematical Platonism is something I personally lean towards as something that would depict an ideal realm of the simulation hypothesis ilk. The crowd of sciforums is somewhat unpredictable in their mindset with regard to the wide ranging responses they give in my experience. I follow them closely.

[C C]

In regards to what you said before the quote, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions right away although the discussion can go in many directions. Mathematical Platonism is something I personally lean towards as something that would depict an ideal realm of the simulation hypothesis ilk. The crowd of sciforums is somewhat unpredictable in their mindset with regard to the wide ranging responses they give in my experience. I follow them closely.

I'm just saying it becomes something that the "in-crowd" which actually has the clout to shout-down or ridicule something at a typical science forum would not like, if they acquired awareness that either dualism or mathematical realism was what their surface views actually slid into or masked. Or they truly went through the mental effort of extricating themselves from further obfuscations to shield themselves from such realizations (usually unlikely).

~