= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on How do you notice when you are ignorant of necessary alternative hypotheses? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (69)
You just assume that's true. Before we actually do run that simulation in practice we don't know whether that's true.
Yes, and other people do believe in souls and God. We don't have evidence that proves either hypothesis.
Yes, and the brain as an antenna hypothesis is basically what parapsychologists like Dean Radin advocate these days. We don't have yet evidence to prove it wrong.
Saying we could in theory run experiments that if those experiments turn out a certain way would prove our theory right is not the same thing as arguing that there evidence for your theory.
Science lives from distinguishing what you know and what you don't know.
I am making predictions, but they are predictions that a concrete, existing program of research (the field of neuroscience) is trying to test.
I obviously can't conjure this evidence out of thin air, because it doesn't yet exist (and, sure, may never exist). But I am outlining why I believe that calling consciousness emergent is a perfectly valid, predictive hypothesis in the context of neuroscience (saying 'phenomena X is emergent' is, I believe, not an empty statement at all but instead more-or-less equivalent to saying "The question 'What singular external thing causes phenomena X' should be dissolved'; with panpsychism being the anti-emergent hypothesis in this case).
And I also believe that emergent consciousness is more likely to be the correct view, and I hope I've given clear reasons why that's so.