deleted by creator

I suppose I was overly vague about what I meant by “exact copy.” I mean all of the knowledge, memories, and an exact map of the state of our neurons at the time of upload being uploaded to a computer, and then the functions being simulated from there. Many people believe that even if we could simulate it so perfectly that it matched a human brain’s functions exactly, it still wouldn’t be conscious because it’s still not a real human brain. That’s the point I was arguing against. My argument was that if we could mimic human brain functions closely enough, there’s no reason to believe the brain is so special that a simulation could not achieve consciousness too.
And you’re right, it may not be conscious in the same way. We have no reason to believe either way that it would or wouldn’t be, because the only thing we can actually verify is conscious is ourself. Not humans in general, just you, individually. Therefore, how conscious something is is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one because we simply cannot test if it’s true. We couldn’t even test if it was conscious at all, and my point wasn’t that it would be, my point is that we have no reason to believe it’s possible or impossible.

I see, so your definition of “physical” is “made of particles?” In that case, sorta yeah. Particles behave as waves when unobserved, so you could argue that they no longer qualify as particles, and therefore, by your definition, are not physical. But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles. Energy, for instance, is not all particles, but it can be. Quantum fields are not particles, but they can give rise to them. Both those things are clearly real, but they aren’t made of particles.
On the second point, that’s kinda trespassing out of science territory and into “if a tree falls in the forest” territory. We can’t prove that a truly unobserved macroscopic object wouldn’t display quantum properties if we just didn’t check if it was, but that’s kinda a useless thing to think about. It’s kinda similar to what our theories are though, in that the best theory we have is that the bigger the object is, the more likely the interaction we call “observation” just happens spontaneously without the need for interaction. Too big, and it’s so unlikely in any moment for it not to happen that the chances of the wave function not being collapsed in any given moment is so close to zero there’s no meaningful distinction between the actual odds and zero.

There shouldn’t be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That’s the mystery. Why can’t large objects exhibit quantum properties? Nobody knows, all we know is they don’t. We’ve attempted to figure it out by creating larger and larger objects that still exhibit quantum properties, but we know, at some point, it just stops exhibiting these properties and we don’t know why, but it doesn’t require an observer to collapse the wave function.
Also, can you define physical for me? It seems we have a misunderstanding here, because I’m defining physical as having a tangible effect on reality. If it wasn’t real, it could not interact with reality. It seems you’re using a different definition.

A building does not actually enter a superposition when unobserved, nor does Schrodinger’s cat. The point of that metaphor was to demonstrate, through humor, the difference between quantum objects and non-quantum objects, by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to think a cat could enter a superposition like a particle. In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction “observation” actually is.
Additionally, we can observe the effects of waves quite clearly. We can observe how they interact with things, how they interfere with each other, etc. It is only attempting to view the particle itself that causes it to collapse and become a particle and not a wave. We can view, for instance, the interference pattern of photons of light, behaving like a wave. This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it. It’s only if we try to observe the paths of the individual photons that the pattern changes. We didn’t make the photons real, we could already see they were real by their effects on reality. We just collapsed the function, forcing them to take a single path.

I think you’re a little confused about what observed means and what it does.
When unobserved, elementary particles behave like a wave, but they do not stop existing. A wave is still a physical thing. Additionally, observation does not require consciousness. For instance, a building, such as a house, when nobody is looking at it, does not begin to behave like a wave. It’s still a physical building. Therefore, observation is a bit of a misnomer. It really means a complex interaction we don’t understand causes particles to behave like a particle and not a wave. It just happens that human observation is one of the possible ways this interaction can take place.
An unobserved black hole will still feed, an unobserved house is still a house.
To be clear, I’m not insulting you or your idea like the other dude, but I wanted to clear that up.

On the contrary, it’s not a flaw in my argument, it is my argument. I’m saying we can’t be sure a machine could not be conscious because we don’t know that our brain is what makes us conscious. Nor do we know where the threshold is where consciousness arises. It’s perfectly possible all we need is to upload an exact copy of our brain into a machine, and it’d be conscious by default.

We don’t even know what consciousness is, let alone if it’s technically “real” (as in physical in any way.) It’s perfectly possible an uploaded brain would be just as conscious as a real brain because there was no physical thing making us conscious, and rather it was just a result of our ability to think at all.
Similarly, I’ve heard people argue a machine couldn’t feel emotions because it doesn’t have the physical parts of the brain that allow that, so it could only ever simulate them. That argument has the same hole in that we don’t actually know that we need those to feel emotions, or if the final result is all that matters. If we replaced the whole “this happens, release this hormone to cause these changes in behavior and physical function” with a simple statement that said “this happened, change behavior and function,” maybe there isn’t really enough of a difference to call one simulated and the other real. Just different ways of achieving the same result.

My point is, we treat all these things, consciousness, emotions, etc, like they’re special things that can’t be replicated, but we have no evidence to suggest this. It’s basically the scientific equivalent of mysticism, like the insistence that free will must exist even though all evidence points to the contrary.

I don’t have direct examples because I suck at googling, but what I saw that made me think of this was an ancient Greek philosopher insulting another, presumably in a rude tone, but still translated to look super polite and old timey. The explanations people have given here have really shed a lot of light for me on why that is though, so it makes sense to me now.

I tried to find examples but turns out I’m really bad at googling. Quotes of ancient Greek philosophers is one example though. Surely not all of them spoke formally, and I’ve heard some even spoke rather rudely, and yet when they’re translated they’re still translated into really formal, old timey language. There’s been some nice explanations here of why that is though, so I understand a lot better.

The most cathartic moment of my entire life was when I encountered that exact thing in a thread from over a decade ago expecting that to be it and lost all hope, only to find somebody replied calling them out and telling them to share their solution or future googlers were gonna be very upset. They posted their solution and it did, indeed, work.
Don’t even remember what the issue was, but the wave of relief was amazing enough that I still remember the feeling to this day.

We don’t shoot eagles in America, we shoot turkeys. Just as Benjamin Franklin intended.

deleted by creator

Not if you’re really bad at them.

I navigate by not navigating and just accepting that the second I left the house I was already lost.

At least that means I get to be rich and hot. Better get shopping for castles to brood in I guess.

Considering a broken bone didn’t cause any bruising, I don’t think I’m up for the Drukhari shit they probably have in mind.

I’ve got a fair amount of fat and muscle on me. That could be a factor though. Maybe one of the reasons I don’t bruise easily is because I absorb the blows better than I used to. Back when I was bruising constantly I had alarmingly little body fat.

Combined with some of the stuff other people have mentioned, I can see there being enough factors piled on that the injury would have to be really severe before I start having noticeable bruising.

It was good until I broke the same toe the same way again. I’ll never break any other bones, just that toe over and over again. Luckily there’s been basically no pain this time since I’ve actually been treating it properly and staying off it.

It’s nice to know my arteries are good considering my doctors hate my veins. Getting blood drawn often takes 3 or 4 attempts and when I need an IV they break out the ultrasound.

And the drunk bit does make sense. When I broke my toe while drunk, I didn’t even know it was broken and just kept walking on it, so maybe that’s why it bruised when I normally don’t.