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

[maestroanth]

For those of us who have no idea of what you are presenting, an example or link would be appreciated.

Ummm.....Google?

[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.

[Excited Penguin]

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.

Presumably, one step in solving this problem would be to hear a particularly powerful A.I.'s take on reality, don't you think? And experts believe we're not that far from that either.

[robvalue]

Too much time on my hands...

What I actually have is a different way of dealing with solipsism. Instead of assuming our objective reality is "real", I don't even bother trying to define what "real" means. It's real to me, and that's as real as anything can ever be. So it doesn't matter how real it actually is, or whether that's even a sensible question. My experience is what it is.

Please don't anyone take this for an argument that "things aren't real". I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply examining what it even means to be "real".

EP: Not if the AI is part of a dream, as I covered above

[I_am_not_mafia]

I don't see what the big deal is with consciousness and why people keep going on about it. I can only assume that people are consciously trying to understand their own consciousness which is only ever going to be subjective when they are looking for objective answers.

[robvalue]

I think that's exactly it. It's something people can't help being curious about, and fascinated with.

It's also all we've "really got"! Or at least, appear to. So dismissing/explaining it in a scientific way feels very unintuitive. Even to an anal twat like me.

[Alex K]

I don't see what the big deal is with consciousness and why people keep going on about it. I can only assume that people are consciously trying to understand their own consciousness which is only ever going to be subjective when they are looking for objective answers.

This raises the question why I still haven't managed to finish Dennett's book.

[robvalue]

Don't take my stupid ideas away from me! I need them!

[Time Traveler]

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.

I appreciate your perspective. I would add, however, that whether we are dreaming, or a simulation, or a brain in a vat, what you really seem to be arguing is that there is an objective reality (take your solipsistic pick), but that this reality we perceive might not be it. And again, while we can't currently rule out that what we perceive is entirely an illusion, there seems to be no credible evidence that it is indeed illusory. I think some philosophers tie themselves up in mental knots imagining what is possible, but forget to examine what is probable. I would think the most probable explanation is that reality is what we currently perceive (however imperfectly), and that the Matrix (or whatever other reality might be the actual "real" one) would add unnecessary complexities. Not only would that other reality need to exist of its own accord, but it would also have to sustain the complexities of this illusory reality. So when you say, "We can't ever know it's real," I have to agree with you if your criteria is 100% certainty. (Although future generations may be able to device methods to falsify solipsistic hypotheses entirely.) But if you apply Occam's Razor ("more things should not be used than are necessary"), we get a very high probability that we can trust our perceived reality is the objectively real one. But I greatly appreciate the civil discourse.

[robvalue]

Thank you

I agree. I have no grounds for saying this isn't "the" objective reality. Nothing solid, anyway. I'm only noting limitations on our ability to be sure about it. Personally, I am baffled by the idea that it could ever be demonstrated that this is in fact "reality", even by probability. I don't get how it can be done. But I'm open to hearing about attempts that are made in the future, I'm not using my incredulity as an argument.

It seems intuitive that there is a "real" objective reality, somewhere; we just can't be sure that we have ever found it. But really, that's an assumption in itself, because I wouldn't even know how to define what it means that it is "real". The best I can come up with is that it exists independently of any particular viewpoint. And that's again assuming anything can exist independently this way.

Sure, it amounts to mental masturbation, as some call it. It has no bearing on anything, except the pleasure (or otherwise) people get from thinking about it.

Most people simply assume that the objective reality has been found; fair enough. I'm just not bothering to even define what "real" means in the first place, and I accept what I find as "real to me". The end result is exactly the same, of course.

It's just my musings. I feel ultimately vastly under-equipped to make any concrete statements about anything. Hence my reliance on the scientific method to return sound, probabilistic results and to accept them as the best we can ever do.