Think the point was there are a lot of things that at some point we 'didn't understand' . But we keep chipping away at it. And eventually we do understand.
We were able to build steam engines before understanding Entropy, and Entropy is super complex.
I think the issue here is, you probably can't apply the same logic to consciousness.
It's the medium through which we understand, comprehend and chip away things. It's the medium in which the world appears. It's the medium in which "you" exists or think exists.
Extraordinary evidence is required to make a claim that firing of neurons, which we perceive and understand through consciousness is what causes consciousness.
> Be audacious. Most people who are talented or smart are scared of doing things. I’m not sure why that is, but it’s more often than not the case.
Because they are book smart. As in raised in right conditions and sent to the right schools.
Also not smart enough to actually realise they will die one day and contemplate on that.
They are focused on resume and status building as if they are eternal. Common traits involves plugging a lot of keywords while talking, posting a lot on twitter/linkedin/instagram etc
If they do realise their own mortality they won't be so scared and not afraid to do anything meaningful.
> In this light consciousness also makes more sense to me, although consciousness feels more like a by-product, our (human) ability to hold an internal model of the world in our minds and interact with it, is pretty advanced.
You can generate all kind of sentences like this all day you want in your consciousness. That does not make it any true.
There is zero evidence for existence of physical matter/materialism.
The only thing we know for sure that exists is consciousness.
And you suggest the complete opposite with zero evidence.
I always found weird all these discussions about what exists and what not exists in that there is a distinct lack of focus on what existence means.
Even if the only thing to exists (existence level 0, if you wish) was some vague "cognitive activity" would I not exist (existence level 1) in that cognition?
Unless you assume that there is a certain divine level and you are conjecturing about your relative existence compared to it what is the object of talking about the possibility of non-existence?
In my mind this is similar to the theological mind-trip about the universe being a simulation; it is clear that I exist in some sense, rather than focusing on whether my existence is fake or "not real existence" is it not more reasonable to focus on how my existence relates to other existences?
There is also zero "evidence", by this extremely restrictive standard of "evidence", for existence of any consciousness aside one's own. This rhetorical strategy thus has a weakness: who or what exactly are you trying to convince?
> There is also zero "evidence", by this extremely restrictive standard of "evidence", for existence of any consciousness aside one's own.
Yes. That is correct.
> This rhetorical strategy thus has a weakness: who or what exactly are you trying to convince?
Ego dissolution/self realiszation takes time. It's my goal in life. But haven't achieved yet. But your comment do point that I should not waste time on engaging in things like this which builds up the ego more.
We are not anywhere close to creating a conscious AI. An AI without humanity is completely pointless unless it is capable of building a conscious AI which I doubt it is.
Hmm. How do you know this is the case if you don't understand it? Magical thinking?