A Conscious Universe

[The Grand Nudger]

All day we can do this. I'll explain the difference between subjective and objective, which of course you already know, and you'll argue the difference is semantic.

I'd be unlikely to argue any such thing, as I doubt it would be required or relevant.

But at the end of the day, when I'm watching little Mario jump around, that's my experience. I'm agnostic about the mechanical state of the computer--

Only by choice and commitment, you don't have to be agnostic about a mechanical state Benny........belief isn't a requirement or even relevant to mechanical states. If you want, and I've already mentioned this, I can provide you with schems and IOs. I think you're grossly misusing the term agnostic.

and there's no way I can infer that state without stepping out of that game experience.

What...the fuck....are you talking about man?

In real life, there's no way to step out of the system and see what's driving it: ideas about the source of experiences can only be assumed.

That's quite the assertion. I don't trust your assertions regarding this subject Benny.

That's fantastic news! Show me how "redness" resolves in geometric space.

You wouldn't survive the measurement, but lets not pretend it couldn't be made...eh? If you'd like to hand over your CNS and associated peripherals to be weighed and measured....while someone somewhere would greatly appreciate that - I don;t think you'd ever get the satisfaction of the final numbers.

I can do that with a computer, too: hook up a breadboard to a USB adapter, shine a blue light on it, and observe what memory registers change when I do so. Have I now established that the computer is experiencing qualia?

You'd need photoreceptors, of course (like your eyes)- but I wouldn't know, I'm only going by your description of qualia....and if that description is accurate, and you claim qualia...then yeah, seems to me like you have. For my part, I doubt that qualia can be competently and thoroughly described so simply as "experience" - I think theres more to it than all of that (your brain and nerves and eyes aren't what I'd call simple machines...after all)...but maybe I'm wrong, maybe it -is- that simple.

If so, then qualia means nothing, and the fact that everything I do, including making observations, is through qualia, represents a serious philsophical quandary.

It would mean quite a bit, but maybe not what you want it to mean....hrugs:

You may be disinterested in this quandary, and wave it away with a nod toward the brain (or the computer), but I have a sincere interest in the nature of my experiences, and the reason for their existence, that isn't answered by "Duhhh, you're stupid. It's in the brain, of course!"

Not exactly a very kind or accurate description of my interest or participation. Brains -and- computers are, to me, the most fascinating machines in existence - in any implementation. Nor am I in the habit of waving anything, I provide descriptions, explanations....outright and upfront proclamations of uncertainty and difference between systems and interactions....honestly, Benny.....if I'm handwaving...wtf are -you- doing? BTW, you did it again, its:

"Duh, you're stupid. It -is- the brain, of course." Not -in- -is-....repeat that to yourself until it sticks and then think about all of the ways the conversation is changed. I really want you to consider that deeply, because all of your language implies a split, a dichotomy. If your objections imply a dichotomy or an issue with that dichotomy, then they do not speak to -my- position.

Maybe this will work. When I say an AND gate is true...that doesn't mean that there is truth -in- the AND gate, floating around, doing truthy shit. It means that the AND gate is in one of two very particular configurations bounded on all sides, facilitated, and exhaustively described by the material interaction of it's component parts. The information isn't "in the gate"...the information is a description -of- the gate. If it were in any other material state, it would be -not true-.