It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I like some almond butter with jam. The sweet makes it an appealing snack and the almond butter sticks to everything.
I really appreciate when a topic I'm interested in is opposed and engaged in. I find that my own understanding and reasoning gets improved and refined when debated.
What seems to be explained here isn't about having views or what the right view is, rather it is about how we relate to our views and the views of others. Are we attached or averse to the view or can we remain impartial and objective, willing to see and understand other views with an open mind.
So much of the trouble with politics these days seems to be exactly this. That people are so attached and entrenched in their particular view of the right way that we can't imagine or understand another's worldview.
My main disagreement is with condition 1. Even if the behaviors of consciousness could be perfectly simulated, without a physical brain would it would there be any individual that would actually have a first person experience of that data processing like we do. Does a weather simulation ever actually get wet?
To me this smacks of a technologists version of a creation myth. It fills in a gap in our understanding of the origins of the universe.
Regarding specifics I think there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning behind it. It's that we don't understand consciousness well enough to use the argument from probability that the idea rests on. I'm not convinced that there isn't something fundamental to the physical wetware of our brains needed to generate consciousness to even say that a robot that perfectly replicated a human brain would be conscious. Let alone a computer simulation of a brain that lacks the biological structure.
To put it another way, we could develop far more advanced weather simulations that might perfectly predict the weather at every moment but it would never actually get wet in the simulation. So advanced civilizations could perfectly simulate a universe with beings in it, but does that mean that the simulated beings are ever conscious? We just don't understand that variable enough to say living in a simulated universe is highly probable, because it might actually be impossible.
Listening to Dan Harris' podcast yesterday he had on guest Gretchen Rubin to talk about her book about the basic tendencies we have in meeting inner and outer expectations, particularly in regards to forming new habits such as meditating, exercising, diet, etc.
Basically we either meet or resist inner or outer expectations and in combination of these there are 4 basic ways of meeting expectations.
-Upholders respond readily to outer and inner expectations
-Questioners question all expectations; they’ll meet an expectation if they think it makes sense--essentially, they make all expectations into inner expectations
-Obligers meet outer expectations, but struggle to meet expectations they impose on themselves
-Rebels resist all expectations, outer and inner alike
She gives tips on how to keep ourselves motivated to keep to our wishes. For example questioners should learn about the topic to motivate themselves, while obligers should get a motivation partner or join a group who also wants to do the activity.
Check out the website for more and take the quiz to find out which you are.
Listen to the podcast with Dan Harris