Unfortunately we will never truly know, as the only way we can experience the universe is through our consciousness, in that sense, from a human perception perspective, the universe and our consciousness are inextricably intertwined and any theory or explanation we try to come up with is just our own subjective observations

We do not experience the universe through our consciousness. We cannot comprehend the universe through consciousness. Consciousness is a subset of the universe.

What I meant is that whatever we experience of the universe (thinking in dualistic terms as us being a separate thing from “the rest of the universe”), then that experience is happening through, or in, our consciousness

And sure, we are technically not separate from the universe, we are very much immersed in, and inseparable from it

Are you really Philosophy TrollGPT?

That is certainly how your utterances appear. All language games, as Wittgenstein might have said.

No more discussion with you, just downvotes, troll.

If you are not open to discussing any ideas except asserting your opposing view of mine, then who’s the troll?

What you are doing is the very behavior that makes HN a toxic place and why so many end up avoiding discussion

You can’t control your emotions regarding an online conversation so you lash out and have a meltdown like a toddler, blindly downvoting someone that won’t agree with you

Saying it again because I'm seeing it again. GPT accusations, especially unsubstantiated GPT accusations, should be automatically flagged. There are better ways to disagree with a user, better ways to report GPT written spam comments, and better ways to shut down a conversation that you don't want to have. And, on a personal level, it really makes it seem like you don't know what you're talking about when you resort to this type of comment, even if your previous statements held some weight.

Sorry, it was a sarcastic joke (perhaps /s tag was warranted).

I don't believe nico is literally an LLM - ChatGPT would have more knowledge of physics and philosophy.

However, I do believe nico is a troll, in the sense of deliberately extending a discussion by exaggerating ambiguity, false challenges, pretend misunderstandings, real ignorance of the subject, bland blatherings and faux pedantic quibbles over the definition of terms (e.g 'novel' and 'great' in different historical contexts).

[delayed]

No, there is another way (perhaps the only way) to find some objective knowledge - by the interaction of many consciousnesses. This is the scientific method.

Comparison of experiences, with agreement, or refutation, can produce more reliable knowledge than any individual. See Popper, Lakatos, et many al that you seem unaware of.

Which you will never be able to prove because we can never experience anything outside of our consciousness

You can speculate all you want and create as many models as you please, yet you can never know what reality is to anyone else but yourself, nor what reality is outside of your own consciousness

Exactly. I do not know why this is so hard to understand. If conciseness was everywhere I would be able to know what someone else's reality is. Since I cannot, there is something separating my consciousness from someone else's.

We create consciousness.

Would love some conciseness (sic) to be created from your side in this discussion.

I did not mention or claim proof or proves. Only math can prove anything, because it has formal methods (inference rules) applied to assumptions (axioms). The proof is always contingent on the rules and the axioms.

Science approaches truth as an asymptote, which gets ever closer, but can never be reached (see Zeno). Science denies the possibility of claiming truth. Every theory is open to falsification, then revision, qualification or abandonment.

Science is the rigorous and rational application of doubt.

It's doubt all the way down.

Doubt is the only truth.

The connection of memory to consciousness is a fascinating thing to consider. If we had no memory whatsoever, then even with our huge brains I suspect we'd be as conscious as a plant, or possibly even less so (plants have timekeeping ability and thats a rudimentary memory of sorts). Perhaps 'blue' and 'chocolatey' are the interpretations a memory state makes of new input.

Thank you. I keep bringing it up here and you are the first one who has perceived my point.

For more on 'blue' and 'chocolatey', check out this video...

How did consciousness evolve - with Nicholas Humphrey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QWaZp_2I1k

More reading on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_spectrum