Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "Luke Smith" channel.

  1. I don't think this is true, it would be closer to Jesse cooking horse shit in crystal form and giving it to people, the final effect "getting crazy" occurs, but the process and the thing is totally different.
    8
  2. No, I don't think this is completely fair. As far as I know, there is no stablished, either implicitly or explicitly, consensus on this. We only know it happens, because we exist, and the explanations are varied, but you cannot "agree" with something you cannot explain directly. And also, even if this was a true consensus, it is not true that there would be an implication for machines, as far as we know all complexities are different from eachother. For what we know consciousness could be a unique property of physical complexity and specific chemical reactions in biological tissue, not something that a computer program could replicate. Or it could be something not natural, it's not exactly fine to simply assume it is.
    4
  3.  @ryanh7167  It could also be fundamentally incomputable, being a materialist don't give a pass to someone to instantly believe without proof that all there is in the universe is computable.
    3
  4. @jackkrell4238 People are not "coded", this is the difference. You are thinking in terms of substrate dependency because you already suppose consciousness is a codable thing, something that is input onto something else. But I'm thinking on terms of intrinsic properties for that given substrate (or substrate-like things). I don't, currently, hold a specific view on consciousness (in the sense of adhering to a specific model, previously I was a biological naturalist) and I think any very specific view on the topic is extremely hard to justify. But I also think it's easier to justify a more broad view like that "consciousness is primarily a thing of biological beings, as we know for sure biological beings have it, primarily humans and by similarity possibly other complex animals", which is a given of our own experience and general knowledge. We can't say nothing that strong about any code or any kind of software, so the adversarial broader stance is harder to defend.
    2
  5.  @Napalm6b  I'm not a materialist.
    1
  6.  @seriouscat2231  This is a possible way of defining consciousness, but it is circular as you defined here, and it's not final or the only way of doing it.
    1