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

[maestroanth]

....and nothing more. True or false?  Secular reasoning only plz.....

I personally think it is, but that doesn't mean to say that this "illusion" isn't valuable.  Probably more valuable than the molecules that create it even.

[Foxaèr]

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

[Alex K]

I think a Boltzmann brain is only more likely than a conventional brain if you ignore evolution by natural selection. The level of redundant detail and self consistency we observe in our consciously perceived experience to me also seems very unlikely to arise in a BB

[brewer]

I wiki'ed this and it suggested a "see also: swampman". I think I'm done.

[Whateverist]

....and nothing more. True or false?  Secular reasoning only plz.....

I personally think it is, but that doesn't mean to say that this "illusion" isn't valuable.  Probably more valuable than the molecules that create it even.

I never feel qualified to make the "and nothing more" judgement.  Do you think the nothing more part is especially important to your comment?  Could one portion of the mind, the conscious part, somehow reason its way to such a conclusion?  Maybe my model unit is defective.  Gotta admit I don't know.  Whatever it may be consciousness is doing and regardless of the means, I'll take it!

[I_am_not_mafia]

....and nothing more. True or false?  Secular reasoning only plz.....

Provide evidence that consciousness is simply an illusion emergent of a Boltzmann brain configuration and then I'll say whether it is likely or unlikely.

[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.

[Time Traveler]

....and nothing more. True or false?  Secular reasoning only plz.....

I personally think it is, but that doesn't mean to say that this "illusion" isn't valuable.  Probably more valuable than the molecules that create it even.

My understanding of a Boltzmann brain is that you have this soup of matter and energy in the universe which, if infinite, will eventually swirl together to form an intelligent, self-aware conscious mind in space. If this is accurate, my initial questions are: 1) Just because you achieve a random configuration which achieves consciousness doesn't say anything for how long this configuration lasts or can last. What's to say these BB's don't form and disassemble instantly? 2) The brains that we have evidence of on this planet do not exist alone. They require some mechanism of nourishment. They also require some sensory input to collect information to store in the brain (eyes, ears, etc.). How is a Boltzmann brain floating alone in empty space different from handing you a CPU that isn't plugged into anything and has no input/output mechanisms? Can brains, by themselves, do anything? 3) What are the elements necessary to form such a brain? For example, in the early universe after the big bang, the only elements present were hydrogen, helium and lithium (if I'm not mistaken). Our brains have much more complex molecular requirements for existence. If you acknowledge that specific elements must exist (even in an infinite universe) to form Boltzmann brains, then perhaps myriad other restrictions exist as well. 4) Imagining we are some disconnected brain only dreaming of our existence as humans defies Occam's razor. Is it not far simpler to assume we are the products of evolution, our brains (and consciousness) becoming more complex over time, rather than a randomly assembled brain creating illusions of reality? 5) Just because something is logically possible doesn't prove its existence. Is there any empirical evidence for Boltzmann brains, Russell's teacup, or unicorns in space actually existing? Logical speculation without confirmation in reality is only... speculation.

[Time Traveler]

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.

[Brian37]

....and nothing more. True or false?  Secular reasoning only plz.....

I personally think it is, but that doesn't mean to say that this "illusion" isn't valuable.  Probably more valuable than the molecules that create it even.

Consciousness is NOT an illusion. Our perceptions of reality can be flawed yes. "Consciousness" is an abstract word we use to describe the biological manifestations of the interactions with others. Our "I" are a result of genes, brain health, and all the input our senses soak in. If we were not conscious we would not be typing to each other or responding to each other.

It is a manifestation of evolutionary processes, an outcome. Like we describe 55 miles an hour when we describe a car in motion.