[ExI] What is Consciousness?

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Apr 4, 2023, 2:48 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 10:29 AM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> ### Oh, not ignoring. Nobody knows why signal processing through these
>>> differing parts of the neural network feels as it feels, rather than
>>> feeling as something else. This is the hard problem of consciousness.
>>> Nobody has even the rudiments of the knowledge of ontology that is
>>> presumably needed to solve this problem.
>>>
>>> Since the problem is way beyond my (or anybody else's) capabilities, I
>>> defer further analysis until and if new pertinent information is available.
>>> I would advise all people to do the same.
>>>
>>
>> We're working to build and track consensus around a message to the world
>> that says there IS no hard problem, it is just a color quality problem.
>>
>
> ### Most definitely there is a hard problem at the core of ontology. Or
> rather I should say, ontology as a branch of philosophy is a morass of
> unanswered and perhaps unanswerable questions that steadfastly refuse to
> yield to the progress of mere natural science. What does it mean to exist?
> Why does our existence feel in the way it feels? What is this "physics"
> that people talk about? Do you really understand the words "material" and
> "immaterial"?
>
> We can determine which particular structures and processes in the world
> seem to be associated with conscious experience, in excruciating detail but
> all that does not shed light on why things feel like they feel to us,
> whether you are talking about the experience of color, or sound, or emotion.
>
> Of course there is a hard problem of consciousness, right there at the
> core of ontology.
>
> Science succeeds. The mystery endures.
>

Indeed. But I would say some cracks are finally appearing in the
intractability of the problem of ontology. For the first time in history we
can link observational evidence to a theory that explains why we exist. My
article here explains what progress has been made in this question:

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/

The short answer is that if we assume absolute truths, like 2+2=4, have
always existed and always will exist, we can show constructively how this
leads to other mathematical truths and equations, some of which define all
computable universes and minds. The distribution of these mind states as
implied by algorithmic information theory leads to many testable
predictions about our universe, all of which, to date, have been confirmed.
Including:

A multiverse of many parallel histories, fundamental unpredictability,
involving seemingly unlimited computation.
A universe having simple, computable, life friendly laws, having both time
and an apparent beginning in time.
A universe where information and observation play a critical and
fundamental role.

See the section:
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Is_This_Testable

If correct, this puts observation at the heart of ontology and makes
understanding consciousness central to understanding reality.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230404/4fa45504/attachment.htm>