The hard problem of consciousness asks: why do humans perceive time as a series of moments (or more fundamentally, why do humans perceive anything at all)
Solving the hard problem might be necessary for explaining why people have a quale of passing-time, but is not sufficient—you dont have to have that particular quale.
Unfortunately, the competing theories (e.g. “time is created when conscious beings cause quantum waveform collapse”) are all pretty bad,
Around here at Less Wrong, the theories you are most likely to come across is “time is an illusion”
There are no good theories of time as an illusion, either. Not least because you have to solve the hard problem as part of them.
some non-physical “consciousness substance”. These theories are collectively called dualism
No, collapse theories don’t have to be dualistic.
Because perception is inherently subjective, this question is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. This accounts for the hardness of the hard problem of consciousness.
If anything is inherently subjective , or beyond the scope of science, then strong physicalism is false.
Solving the hard problem might be necessary for explaining why people have a quale of passing-time, but is not sufficient—you dont have to have that particular quale.
Yes.
There are no good theories of time as an illusion, either. Not least because you have to solve the hard problem as part of them.
I would rate timeless MWI (along with the additional assertion that anything isomorphic to a mind is conscious) as a “good” theory in the following sense: It is internally consistent and adequately describes the perceptions of conscious individuals at any given moment at time. That is to say at any given moment in time, there is no logical argument or evidence I am aware of which strongly contradicts this theory. Its primary weakness is (as I mentioned) that it seems to do a poor job explaining why humans experience time as a series of moments (at not say as a single moment only or a unified whole across all possible world lines).
No, collapse theories don’t have to be dualistic.
Agreed, but I think you will find that in practice most advocates of collapse theory are dualists.
If anything is inherently subjective , or beyond the scope of science, then strong physicalism is false.
: It is internally consistent and adequately describes the perceptions of conscious individuals at any given moment at time
Timeless single world theories fail to explain where the subjective flow of time comes from. Timeless many world theories are in an even worse position.
If there is no passing-time, then any physical state adequate to support consciousness will be conscious, wherever it is in the timeless ensemble ..
there would be no question of being conscious “now” or “at a time” because, by (your) hypothesis, there is no time!
So a timeless single world theory would predict that you are simultaneously conscious for every moment ofy your life, that you have static 4D consciousness. And Timeless many world theory would , even less realistically, imply that you consciously experience yourself as some 5D branching structure!
there is no logical argument or evidence I am aware of which strongly contradicts this theory
....
Its primary weakness is (as I mentioned) that it seems to do a poor job explaining why humans experience time as a series of moments
The thing you have called the primary weakness is the evidence against it!!
Perhaps you are assuming that mere qualia or subjective impressions do not count as evidence, properly speaking...
Agreed, but I think you will find that in practice most advocates of collapse theory are dualists.
Most lay advocates, outside the physics community, are, sure.
then strong physicalism is false
Then we are arguing about the price..about *how false. If there is a non physical thingy that causes subjectivity , maybe there is one that causes passingness.
It would only say that you are such a 4d or 5d construct. It remains more nebolous to say what it feels like on the inside.
If you had a biological organism and then did a brain scan of their brains waited 1000 years and then downloaded the brain scan to a new biological brain then computationaly there would probably be a 1000 year gap in the experience. If there is non-computational aspect to conciousness one could think that there are separate consioucness experiencing the same computational state for the while the state is in “stasis”.
Given typical fysics the computational states of the 3d slices of the 4d and 5d objects would be synchornised enough to give “all at once” experiences.
Solving the hard problem might be necessary for explaining why people have a quale of passing-time, but is not sufficient—you dont have to have that particular quale.
There are no good theories of time as an illusion, either. Not least because you have to solve the hard problem as part of them.
No, collapse theories don’t have to be dualistic.
If anything is inherently subjective , or beyond the scope of science, then strong physicalism is false.
Yes.
I would rate timeless MWI (along with the additional assertion that anything isomorphic to a mind is conscious) as a “good” theory in the following sense: It is internally consistent and adequately describes the perceptions of conscious individuals at any given moment at time. That is to say at any given moment in time, there is no logical argument or evidence I am aware of which strongly contradicts this theory. Its primary weakness is (as I mentioned) that it seems to do a poor job explaining why humans experience time as a series of moments (at not say as a single moment only or a unified whole across all possible world lines).
Agreed, but I think you will find that in practice most advocates of collapse theory are dualists.
then strong physicalism is false.
Timeless single world theories fail to explain where the subjective flow of time comes from. Timeless many world theories are in an even worse position.
If there is no passing-time, then any physical state adequate to support consciousness will be conscious, wherever it is in the timeless ensemble .. there would be no question of being conscious “now” or “at a time” because, by (your) hypothesis, there is no time!
So a timeless single world theory would predict that you are simultaneously conscious for every moment ofy your life, that you have static 4D consciousness. And Timeless many world theory would , even less realistically, imply that you consciously experience yourself as some 5D branching structure!
....
The thing you have called the primary weakness is the evidence against it!!
Perhaps you are assuming that mere qualia or subjective impressions do not count as evidence, properly speaking...
Most lay advocates, outside the physics community, are, sure.
Then we are arguing about the price..about *how false. If there is a non physical thingy that causes subjectivity , maybe there is one that causes passingness.
It would only say that you are such a 4d or 5d construct. It remains more nebolous to say what it feels like on the inside.
If you had a biological organism and then did a brain scan of their brains waited 1000 years and then downloaded the brain scan to a new biological brain then computationaly there would probably be a 1000 year gap in the experience. If there is non-computational aspect to conciousness one could think that there are separate consioucness experiencing the same computational state for the while the state is in “stasis”.
Given typical fysics the computational states of the 3d slices of the 4d and 5d objects would be synchornised enough to give “all at once” experiences.