This is all very easily made trivial if you just stop considering consciousness as some special property that has be imparted on things.
If it's just the output from parsing an incredibly complicated series of biological logic gates, then the materialists have nothing more to prove than the biological system simply exists.
If that was all it was, we would have created artificial consciousness decades ago.
I should have spent more time setting the stage and mentioned the details of the Hard Problem of consciousness. It doesn’t seem like 95% of the people commenting have heard of it, but I assumed most would have at least a vague understanding of the fact that modern science doesn’t have the first clue on the roots of consciousness
If there is no special property of consciousness to impart then the threshold for something comparable to human consciousness is system complexity comparable to the human brain.
We're still a long way off creating anything on that level ourselves, and a very very long way off doing that in a way that isn't more or less just copying evolution's homework on neural networks. We've poured billions of dollars and a sizeable portion of top level human resources into AI and LLM projects recently, and even at their peak they pale in comparison to the just complexity we currently understand about how the brain functions, nevermind all the parts we haven't even figured out yet.
So no we couldn't have created artificial consciousness decades ago, and we may not be able to do so for many decades hence.
As to the "hard problem", I disagree to the foundational assertion of it.
Proponents of the hard problem argue that it is categorically different from the easy problems since no mechanistic or behavioral explanation could explain the character of an experience, not even in principle.
Making that your fundamental axiom stems from a misunderstanding of the vast unplumbed depths of the mechanical complexity of the human brain. The stupid urban myth of only using 10% of our brain has an unexpected a kernel of truth to it, in that what we currently understand about how the brain functions could easily turn out to be only 10% of the total system complexity.
You're just trying to explain "God creates consciousness" without the "God" part, genius. We absolutely know what parts of the brain control what, and how it's accomplished. We see that animals without consciousness have smaller areas of the brain that show activity when decisions are made and larger areas that show activity when the subject reacts to something like a ball being thrown at them, e.g. subconscious instincts.
Just say it's God already, at least that's a valid argument.
Muh, SaMe AtOmS YoU cAnT ExPlAiN It nonsense is beneath you. Just because YOU don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's not understood.
H2O and OH- have the same atoms, but are completely different. That's not how atoms and molecules work.
Where 👏 does 👏 consciousness 👏 come 👏 from 👏 then 👏 genius 👏
This is all very easily made trivial if you just stop considering consciousness as some special property that has be imparted on things.
If it's just the output from parsing an incredibly complicated series of biological logic gates, then the materialists have nothing more to prove than the biological system simply exists.
If that was all it was, we would have created artificial consciousness decades ago.
I should have spent more time setting the stage and mentioned the details of the Hard Problem of consciousness. It doesn’t seem like 95% of the people commenting have heard of it, but I assumed most would have at least a vague understanding of the fact that modern science doesn’t have the first clue on the roots of consciousness
If there is no special property of consciousness to impart then the threshold for something comparable to human consciousness is system complexity comparable to the human brain.
We're still a long way off creating anything on that level ourselves, and a very very long way off doing that in a way that isn't more or less just copying evolution's homework on neural networks. We've poured billions of dollars and a sizeable portion of top level human resources into AI and LLM projects recently, and even at their peak they pale in comparison to the just complexity we currently understand about how the brain functions, nevermind all the parts we haven't even figured out yet.
So no we couldn't have created artificial consciousness decades ago, and we may not be able to do so for many decades hence.
As to the "hard problem", I disagree to the foundational assertion of it.
Making that your fundamental axiom stems from a misunderstanding of the vast unplumbed depths of the mechanical complexity of the human brain. The stupid urban myth of only using 10% of our brain has an unexpected a kernel of truth to it, in that what we currently understand about how the brain functions could easily turn out to be only 10% of the total system complexity.
God dumbass
Great answer, one of two id accept (the other being “I have no clue”) - any leads on the how of the matter? Aka the subject of the thread?
You're just trying to explain "God creates consciousness" without the "God" part, genius. We absolutely know what parts of the brain control what, and how it's accomplished. We see that animals without consciousness have smaller areas of the brain that show activity when decisions are made and larger areas that show activity when the subject reacts to something like a ball being thrown at them, e.g. subconscious instincts.
Just say it's God already, at least that's a valid argument.
Muh, SaMe AtOmS YoU cAnT ExPlAiN It nonsense is beneath you. Just because YOU don't understand how it works, doesn't mean it's not understood.