Thread: How are we not a computer?

Originally Posted by really

It is my understanding that consciousness is a priori to all such ideas. There may be parallels between the brain and consciousness, but this is not to be mistaken as the whole story. If anything in life could be beyond causes and conditions, it would be consciousness.

I understand this, I do. But at the same time it srikes me as some sort of solipsism, which is totally unpragmatical for a person who decides to try and entertain all aspects of the experienced reality to form some world view. For example, If there is an objective reality which you decide to take as fact, then you cannot continue to take consciousness as the source which is beyond causes. That would make it illogical and some sort of religious mysticism taken on faith. So you either go full blown conscious centred philosophy, or you go with science. If we go with science, that's where the tools, logic and computers are, which we can then use to explain reality. So you see, there really isn't any controversy regarding the possibility of AI on this level exactly. The problem only exists where it emerges, that is on the border between the internal and the percieved external reality.

If you decide to center your view on how you subjecitvely experience your existence, then you can only be sure of your own consciousness.
If you decide to center your view scientifically, than you can only work with everything in existence, which must include the possibility of synthetic consciousness.

Mashing those two views creates and impossible world full of paradoxes. It is the way most religious people see reality (whispy souls attached to material, determinism and no determinsim at the same time, etc.) and that's why you can never even hint on any kind of "deeper" philosophy with them, because of course any existing common sense "logic" of their beliefs break down.

If you're seeking the truth, it's up to you to decide what you're going to focus on. It's possible that either view has explanations for the other one. Personally I'm inclined to see objective reality as the basis, what that really means is up to science.