Consciousness is simply an illusion emergent of a Boltzmann brain configuration....

[robvalue]

Well, I have decided that ultimately I believe in a form of absurdism (I think it was LFC who introduced me to this term). I've always summed it up as, "Things are as real to any particular observer as they appear to be".

So objectively I suspect that consciousness is an illusion of sorts; but nothing is ever viewed truly objectively. Each person has their consciousness/experiences, and to them, they are as real as it gets. I find that trying to pick that apart and say it's not real; or else to determine what is actually objectively real is ultimately an exercise in futility. The best we can do is agree on shared experiences, for now at least.

I don't know, Rob. Yours seems to be a glass-half-empty way of looking at reality. I believe that we do perceive objective reality, albeit only in part and certainly imperfectly. However, with scientific and technological advances, we improve our perceptions and understanding all the time. But to say, for example, that because we cannot achieve 100% knowledge or have 100% perfect perception suggests consciousness is simply illusory and that we won't ever truly distinguish fact from fiction (or reality from fantasy) seems a very binary way of looking at things. I think we have ever-improving models which come closer and closer to describing reality in a variety of ways. 2000 years ago, Higgs bosons and gravity waves were not even dreamed of. Today, we have evidence of their existence, further solidifying our comprehension of objective reality. Will human beings ever achieve 100% perfect understanding of the universe (or multiverse), how consciousness emerges, or how life began? Perhaps not. But if today we are at 90% understanding and tomorrow 91%, then I think we can agree our collective perceptions and explanatory ability describing reality is improving, and therefore perhaps the pursuit is not entirely futile.

I know what you're saying. From a practical viewpoint, I agree with you entirely. We can use the scientific method to learn much about the "objective reality". My viewpoint is more fundamental, that saying this "objective reality" is real, is rather meaningless. We can't ever know it's real. We can't even demonstrate it is real, in a non-circular way. If real just means it's part of what appears to be this objective reality, then that is cool, but it doesn't get around the problem.

All of this could be entirely valid, yet I'm dreaming. Or we're a manifestation of a computer program. So yes, I'm talking about solipsism. And no, it's of no practical importance whatsoever! I'm totally on board with simply assuming that our "objective reality" is real, and meaningfully so, and learning what we can about it. I'm simply noting the limitations of our techniques, to see things from a perspective that isn't constantly intertwined with the thing we're trying to assess. But like I've said, it's no barrier to me. Nor do I suppose it to be for anyone else. I'm a pragmatist by behaviour, but a philosopher by thought.

The flip side is actually more positive. If we are some sort of unreal manifestation, it makes no actual difference. It's still as real as it appears, to us. So it's not really a half-empty approach My pragmatic side works just the same.