>scientific american says what if consciousness isn't realHow come when I say it people are like stfu you're insane..
>>17069379then the scientific american authors have no consciousness thus their article was llm generated thus it's slop
>>17069379>pop sci toilet papershallow entertainment for NPCs
>>17069379You found your people, p-zombie, i think its cute when even soulless abominations can make friends with eachother. You should make friends with them for cute points
>>17069379Trusting the consensus is never a good idea.
Because they’re starting to realize that it might not be possible to make an AI clanker conscious. That’s deeply troubling to secular worldviews. It doesn’t rule out materialism (consciousness may still be understandable and reproducible, but not at our current capabilities) but it opens up the possibility that conscious humans have souls.Atheists would rather say “consciousness is an illusion” than admit we might have souls. In fact, Daniel Dennett, a famous secular thinker, has already said something exactly like that.
>>17069379what about scientists saying consciousness is quantum nonsense? it's like everyone is just throwing shit at the wall.what is going on today is basically "what if consciousness is $anything_one_can_come_up_with?" like everyone is coming up with any string of words they can assemble for consciousness. what if rocks are conscious, what if brain is an antenna, what if quantum bullshit. it creates so much noise that we're back to square one, clearly nobody has any fucking clue.
>>17070759If there are souls, then conscious is an illusion to the souls, everything is an illusion to souls because a sneaky all powerful alpha-soul demon is creating an illusion upon every "individual" soul.
>>17070793I think scientists should be the only people who have zero right to place their filthy hands on this topic. Something about them trying to forcefully jam it into their theories about matter makes me violently cringe
>>17070984I think scientists are the only people who have any fucking chance of figuring it out."your kind" had millennia and dindu shit. why? and why are you afraid of scientists having a go at it with modern tools? you literally had all of human history to explain it, and the fucking nonsense you came up with in the meanwhile is still a fucking drag to any discussion on the topic. we constantly still get this fucking brainrot.
>>17071139>I think scientists are the only people who have any fucking chance of figuring it out.They have zero chance of figuring it out because there's no objective, empirical test for it, which is why they have to resort to all kinds of consciousness denialism. Cope with it.
>>17071142there are some ... way out there tests, but not possible for a good bit of time until the tech becomes available. there are ways of almost proving it, I think.if you think it cannot be proven then why are you even having ideas about it? let me guess, you know the truth even without proof? you're magical that way innit
>>17071139>figuring it outPlease noThe panopticon is already too obnoxious as it is, even without having direct access to a complete theory of mind
