I’ll start with the positive: I understand that there’s a certain “sci-fi bullshit” feel to my original post. I expect that many people will be turned off by the tone of it, and I appreciate the feedback in that regard. If my post comes across as too cosmic and thus causes people to not pay attention to it or dismiss it out of hand, I need to work on that.
But, I really get the sense that you did not actually read the post and simply skimmed it. The three major points that you made were all either thoroughly addressed preemptively in my post, or thoroughly inapplicable.
RE your collection problem: Collect what? There is no empirically-validated working model for consciousness, you do not know what you need to collect.
I know that there is no empirically proven model for consciousness, which is why I explicitly said “the brain” is meant as a hypothesis, not the answer. Implicit in solving the Collection Problem is correctly creating a valid model.
In what sense would a simulation of your physiology constitute immortality? etc. etc. etc.
I was quite specific about wanting to avoid the “Is simulated consciousness the same as real consciousness debate”. I acknowledged it as a potential solution, and further acknowledged it may not be the correct solution, then went on to explain why it didn’t matter. Let’s say you are correct regarding your criticism of simulation as a valid means of reproducing consciousness. It doesn’t change the nature of the Creation Problem. The problem still exists, and an answer still exists.
What is the argument that you’d be able to create… a brain or mind from that static image?
That is, quite literally, a rephrasing of the Creation Problem (“Once we have that information, how do we create a physical representation of it?”) I don’t have an answer to that question. If I did, it wouldn’t be a “problem”.
I’ll start with the positive: I understand that there’s a certain “sci-fi bullshit” feel to my original post. I expect that many people will be turned off by the tone of it, and I appreciate the feedback in that regard. If my post comes across as too cosmic and thus causes people to not pay attention to it or dismiss it out of hand, I need to work on that.
But, I really get the sense that you did not actually read the post and simply skimmed it. The three major points that you made were all either thoroughly addressed preemptively in my post, or thoroughly inapplicable.
I know that there is no empirically proven model for consciousness, which is why I explicitly said “the brain” is meant as a hypothesis, not the answer. Implicit in solving the Collection Problem is correctly creating a valid model.
I was quite specific about wanting to avoid the “Is simulated consciousness the same as real consciousness debate”. I acknowledged it as a potential solution, and further acknowledged it may not be the correct solution, then went on to explain why it didn’t matter. Let’s say you are correct regarding your criticism of simulation as a valid means of reproducing consciousness. It doesn’t change the nature of the Creation Problem. The problem still exists, and an answer still exists.
That is, quite literally, a rephrasing of the Creation Problem (“Once we have that information, how do we create a physical representation of it?”) I don’t have an answer to that question. If I did, it wouldn’t be a “problem”.