Say, let’s admit consciousness is the result of a physical process.

Then say this process only goes “forward” when our time coordinate increases. Just like an egg gets cooked when it’s temperature coordinate increases, but it doesn’t get more or less cooked when it’s temperature coordinate decreases.

This would mean that going back in time doesn’t result in any perceptible change, since your consciousness hasn’t evolved from it’s “former” state.

Thus making it possible for us to be travelling through plenty of dimensions in varied directions, only ever experiencing the brief times when you happen to be moving in increasing time. Or whatever combination of movement along varied dimensions makes it possible for you to be conscious.

TLDR: i need to take shorter showers

    • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
      1·
      2 months ago

      People explaining their own consciousness is really not good enough. Simple llm ai systems can do that. I’m pretty sure that dogs are conscience, but we can never get their perspective. You cannot know anyone other than yourself is conscious.

        • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
          1·
          2 months ago

          Science is done by observing, theorizing, predicting and then testing. We cannot test anything on consciousness.

            • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
              1·
              2 months ago

              Not really. We know that a human can detect those frequencies and output information related to them. Like any transducer. Like any computer. We cannot know what the experience is. The best we can do is describe our own experience, and compare the description to that which other people give, but that’s not really better evidence than what we’d get from a current llm ai which can do the same. It’s logical to assume other people have conscious, but we cannot test it empirically.

                • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  I think it is unique. Consciousness of anyone but yourself is immediately an unknowable thing. There are no related effects we can measure. There is nothing we can predict based on it. You can do pseudo science with it and that could have great value, but it will always fall apart under proper scientific method. Other sciences require assumptions, like that logic holds, math is consistent, the world exists etc. and so they are tested under that caveat implicitly. You can also make an assumption that consciousness exists in some cases - but it doesn’t lead anywhere. Like arguing whether a computer can be conscious leads back exactly and only to your original assumptions and so they add no value.