yogthos

turns out they had clones ready to churn out

The whole point of my post was to say that no, there is no such thing as “subjective experiences” because experiences are not products of the subject.

I mean we all obviously have a qualia of experience. That's not really in question. What's in question is whether it's a product of the physical world or not.

Perspectives are defined according to an object used as their basis, and so it definitionally would not make sense for one object to adopt the perspective of another, because doing so would require it to become that other object, and thus would cease to be itself any longer.

That's not true. Let's say we develop technology that allows us to connect two brains together. This isn't purely hypothetical as there are cases of siamese twins who report having such shared experience.

There is no “consciousness,” you have not established that there is, and so your “solutions” are not justified either. That was basically the whole point of my original comment. There is no convincing justification for such a dualistic split in the first place, so all these “solutions” are also unnecessary.

I don't see consciousness as a dualistic split. I see it as an emergent phenomena that arises from the chatter of neurons within the brain. Much the same way a virtual world in a video game can be created from the underlying computation performed on a computer chip.

They do not fundamentally occupy any sort of different realm than any other kind of object that demands a separate explanation.

Again, I'm not suggesting that there is any separate realm. I'm arguing against such notion.

Objects are socially constructed norms which only have ontological reality in how they are applied in a social setting, and do not have autonomous existence inside of brains.

I disagree here. The primary purpose of the brain is to create a simulation of the world that can be used to extrapolate into the future to facilitate decision making. The objects are a part of the model the brain constructs, and that's the basis for social interactions. These would not be possible in the first place without our brains having a common internal representation of the world around us.

I'm familiar with Wittgenstein, but I don't agree with all of his ideas. He also also been demonstrably wrong on a grand scale with Principia Mathematica where he tried to show that formal systems can be proven to be self consistent. This whole notion was shown to be fundamentally misguided by Gödel.

Oh yeah if it's completely toast then yeah you'd have to remove it.

I find even a mostly dead battery is still worth keeping cause it prevents interrupts if there's a short blip in power.

Yeah I was thinking that too actually, I don't see the benefit of ripping the battery out entirely.

Why do you think there's so much talk about NATO peacekeepers.

Yes, you've accurately summarized the issue. We possess subjective experiences or "qualia," which are inherent to our individual consciousness and cannot be directly communicated or proven in others. This makes it impossible for us to confirm whether another being also has qualia, as it remains an internal property of their experience that is uniquely personal and not sharable with others.

In the absence of concrete proof, we are left with two fundamental assumptions regarding the nature of consciousness and its relationship to the physical world. One perspective, dualism, posits that qualia or subjective experiences originate from a separate, non-physical realm distinct from the material reality we perceive. Conversely, materialism proposes that qualia is derived from physical processes within our brain and body, suggesting they should be understood as emergent properties of neural activity rather than supernatural phenomena.

In my view, dualism lacks any further explanatory value when compared to materialism. Given that it necessitates additional assumptions that require further justification, I find it more reasonable to consider qualia as an emergent property of the physical system in which our minds are a product. This perspective allows for a more straightforward explanation of consciousness and subjective experience within the framework of known physical laws and principles.

I would propose taking this argument even further by suggesting that many of the distinctions we make, such as differentiating between inorganic and organic realms or physical and mental domains, are fundamentally arbitrary constructs created by our minds to simplify complex phenomena. While these categories can be useful for comprehension, it's important to remember that they are simply abstract constructs and not inherently reflective of an underlying reality. In essence, the world operates as a continuum of dynamic patterns, with each layer representing an emergent property of the one beneath it.

Yeah that could be cute, I find for a lot of use cases bandwidth isn't that big of a deal in practice. For example, if you just want to stream media then you can load it up on the drive up front.

Funny how the biggest war mongers are always the ones who don't have any skin in the game.

What's really funny is that they impeached Trump for trying to investigate this during his first term.

Same here, I tend to go for indie games just cause I know I have a good chance of actually finishing them. I really love games like Portal and Viewfinder. Portal Revolution was pretty amazing incidentally.

lol yeah, at this point I try games and if it doesn't click with me immediately I just go to the next