Sure, the physical world exists independent of our will and communication, so this text (and all the electric fields that traveled between our machines over vast distances) exist regardless of our will or communication.
But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently from any other agent. I know for sure I exist in some sense, I believe very strongly that the physical world exists, and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine.
In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists than I am of the fact that your subjective experience exists. If I found out the comment I am responding to was in fact GPT-3 output, I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me.
So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than a world of conscious discussion; and exploring the physical world in the aspects we ourselves can observe about it alone is a much more convincing argument than trying to discuss it with other conscious agents.
It's much easier to convince someone else that I can pass through walls than it is for me to actually pass through a wall.
>But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently
>In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists
>So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than
Phrasing all of these in terms of what you believe and what you are convinced/certain of, instead of in terms of what absolutely is, makes my point for me. You didn't even realize you were talking in terms of you getting me to agree over what to believe rather than some objective nature of things indifferent to my opinion. That's how deep seated this is in the way brains and consciousness work.
>I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me.
You even phrased the discussion of your own sensory perception in terms of messages. In this case messages from your own senses. And you personified them too, treating them as conscious enough to lie to you.
>I know for sure I exist in some sense... and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine.
You're already agreeing with my axioms. I know I exist. And making an argument about what consciousness is wouldn't mean much if there wasn't a "you" that was convinced by it. So lets just take it as axioms that any compelling argument has to exist in words, and in any written thought there's "you", "me", and the words themselves. In a way you're being more restrictive than I am. I'm already acquiescing in the axioms that you exist as the same sort of consciousness entity as myself and others in the domain of conversation. If you're having this conversation you're a consciousness and that's all the definition of consciousness we need to make a convincing argument about consciousness.
All I'm saying is, do I need your steadfast belief in the underlying reality as axiom, or can we construct it from the parts we're already agreeing on?
Phrasing is irrelevant. My senses are not little people talking to me about what they perceive, they are sensing organs connected to the brain. Saying that they "lie" is just a twist of the phrase so that I avoid something more unwieldy, like "my sense organs perceive the world incorrectly because of some defect".
> Starting with just the existence of the arguers and their arguments, can they argue for the existence of anything more? If not, what else do they need to assume?
No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discovered without the senses.
>No, you can't argue the world into being from these axioms. They could probably invent logic and mathematics, but nothing of the natural sciences can be discovered without the senses.
It seems contradictory to admit they could invent math and logic, but then reject that they could go one step further and rig that understanding of math into and understanding of physics. I'll admit without some corpus of data to understand the motivation for constructing physics is tenuous. But the question was about the principle of if they could and if you're granting me math I don't see any obstacle left.
>Phrasing is irrelevant. My senses are not little people talking to me about what they perceive
Sure maybe your senses aren't actually little people, but if you've already evolved a social reasoning / grunting system that only knows how to talk about people, why not convert that into a system for reasoning / grunting about everything by imagining everything as little people. It might not be literally true, but its a useful fiction. Its a fiction that lets us hack "conversational reality consciousness" into "physical reality consciousness". The difficulty in twisting the phrase differently is supportive of this hypothesis.
> It seems contradictory to admit they could invent math and logic, but then reject that they could go one step further and rig that understanding of math into and understanding of physics. I'll admit without some corpus of data to understand the motivation for constructing physics is tenuous. But the question was about the principle of if they could and if you're granting me math I don't see any obstacle left.
The problem with math is that math can describe any possible universe, and there is no way to choose until you confront it with the real world. Nothing in math prevents the world from having 1 dimension of time and 1 of space, for example. Nothing in math prevents the electron from being much larger than the proton, or the existence of solitary quarks or anything else.
So I would grant you that the world of talking agents could describe our physical world through math, but they could also imagine any other physical world, and they would have no way to choose one.
But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently from any other agent. I know for sure I exist in some sense, I believe very strongly that the physical world exists, and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine.
In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists than I am of the fact that your subjective experience exists. If I found out the comment I am responding to was in fact GPT-3 output, I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me.
So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than a world of conscious discussion; and exploring the physical world in the aspects we ourselves can observe about it alone is a much more convincing argument than trying to discuss it with other conscious agents.
It's much easier to convince someone else that I can pass through walls than it is for me to actually pass through a wall.
reply