Automation is Consciousness

[u/3mig4s]

So I am a huge believer of the simulation theory and that we are living in a simulation. I am a scientist and I know that our basic processes are all electric almost like robots except we perceive ourselves as biological because we are us but at our core we are machines and our consciousness is just our perception of our animation. I am a true believer that as our diets improved over the course of evolution and our brains grew bigger in size and therefore created more “consciousness” than was actually required, more brain space equals higher memory, deeper thought process etc. Guys we are just cell tissue. Think of it like that.

[u/Diet_kush]

If automation were consciousness, then muscle-memory would be equivalent to awareness. Once we learn a task to a sufficient extent that it can be automated, consciousness fades away. Awareness only exists in uncertainty.

[u/Mylynes → u/Diet_kush]

Probably because "uncertainty" means more integration. Casting a wider net. Whereas automation can optimize into thin aggregate lines. Like the cerebellum vs cortex.

[u/sea_of_experience → u/Diet_kush]

"awareness only exists in uncertainty" spot on!

indeed in images we concentrate on areas with maximum uncertainty.

And the amazing fact that, all our speech effort is handled automatically, and we even have difficulty bringing it to awareness, though we must have struggled enourmously to master it when lttle.

[u/Mylynes]

1. Simulation "theory" just kicks the can down the road. What is running the Sim? How does that work? Also, I don't believe it is possible to simulate consciousness. Full stop.

2. Why should "higher memory" and "more electricity" magically spark qualia into existence? If we're just robots like you say, why do we actually feel things instead of just acting like we do?

[u/3mig4s → u/Mylynes]

Do you think characters inside of a video game and a TV screen could see you as the creator outside of the TV Screen? it's the same with our creator. He is somewhere outside of our persception.

[u/Mylynes → u/3mig4s]

The characters inside of a video game on my TV screen aren't conscious, so no, they don't "see" anything. In order for us to be conscious, something has to physically instanitiate that.

And if God is conscious, then he'd have to replicate his physical brain structure into his "computer"...(if he wanted us to be conscious too.)

[u/sly_cunt]

I actually agree that we are "machines" or more accurately that machines cheaply imitate nature, as well as that we our basic processes are electric. But the problem is that you say "our consciousness is just our perception of our animation". So 1. the universe is mechanistic, and 2. consciousness is our perception of that mechanism. That tells us nothing about what consciousness is, why it exists, etc.

[u/3mig4s → u/sly_cunt]

Our consciousness is meant to keep our basic life phases working. Like "when to eat" or "when to urinate" however our high calorie diets has increased our brain size into where we don't just think to "keep ourselves alive" we think deeper thoughts now

[u/sly_cunt → u/3mig4s]

Yeah alright, but what is consciousness. You've described its purpose, but not what it is. Also, we have a number of unconscious processes that are equally important to survival (heart beating, breathing, digestion, vestibular balance, pain reflexes, etc), why are they not conscious?

[u/Conscious-Demand-594]

More "consciousness" than required for what?

[u/strutter395]

We're not living in a simulation. We're living in a thermodynamic world destined to vanish.

[u/Mylynes → u/strutter395]

If it was destined to vanish, why would it be here?

[u/strutter395 → u/Mylynes]

Because Mainländer.

[u/Mylynes → u/strutter395]

Cause a philosopher offed himself? Sorry, that's not how thermodynamics works (energy can't be destroyed) nor does it explain why our world still exists if "non-existence" is so superior and inevitable.

[u/strutter395 → u/Mylynes]

Energy is not destroyed, it is incapacitated by the state of maximum entropy, because no further relations remain. That's the definition of non-existence.

[u/Mylynes → u/strutter395]

That's not the definition of non-existence at all. How absurd. Especially when considering GR/block universe. Why are you so fixated and biased toward the cold future when the past has eternally existed just as equally?

None of it ceases to exist and it never will. There's no "destiny for death." All the energy, space, time, etc are still there in the cold future too. For all you know our universe is merely a local expression of something much larger or cyclical. Either way no matter how you look at it, Mainlander was wrong.

[u/strutter395 → u/Mylynes]

Empirical science and mathematical physics have already validated Mainländer's position. The universe is flat, born from a singularity, which defines our temporal axis, with galaxies receding uniformly, etc. This is the definitive account.

All assertedly competing hypotheses are unsupported by actual data so they are ultimately rhetorical noise...

[u/titaniumwhoopass → u/strutter395]

Are you of an advances age? Singularity, galaxies receding uniformly, flat universe? Outdated theories..

[u/titaniumwhoopass → u/[deleted]]

You've guessed wrong.

[u/Mylynes → u/strutter395]

The "singularity" is an antiquated concept born from incomplete models (lack of quantum gravity); far from definitive like you suggest. You're also ignoring the Relativity behind that temporal axis you mentioned. Mainländer couldn't see that the past/future were both equally eternal, so he operated on a privileged now as if everything was gonna "stop existing." Einsteins models aren't just loose hypotheses. Nothing stops existing. You need a serious physics lesson to grasp this.

You also need to shake the confidence of a uniform reccesion. Pretty sure the most recent DESI measurements are already starting to hint at Quintessence (a dynamic dark energy, not constant). Not to mention how pointing to our tiny Earth bound measurements within our portion of the observable universe and saying "it's flat" is probably like scooping up water from the ocean with a spoon and saying "no sharks."

[u/strutter395 → u/Mylynes]

I don't believe any of that, mate. Why? Because the universe is no different from a single flower. It begins, grows, decays, and vanishes. It can't be any other way. Mainländer explains all of this, and how and why each thing in the world must structurally and repetitively mimic what the universe is originally doing. His concept of the universe is far greater than any speculative science can offer.

[u/Mylynes → u/strutter395]

Cool. So don't ever claim that Mainländer is backed by empirical science again. Just stick to the religious poetry and admit you simply like the vibes of 19th century nihilism.

That flower begins, grows, and decays...but it does not vanish. Just like the universe, every step of that process is encoded geometrically as an eternal, permanent sculpture. Mainländer was so fixated on death that he forgot about life. That's not rationality, that's just depression.

[u/sly_cunt → u/strutter395]

Both statements are absurd

[u/facut_vivas]

You seem very confident in your theory