This misunderstands the "hard problem" of consciousness which for brevity's sake I will just pose as the question "why does the universe exist at all?"

Sure, we don't know that answer. Probably cannot without an impossible machine that can observe all states of all particles and matter throughout all of time space.

Occam's Razor allows for a simple, good enough definition to satisfy day to day concerns on Earth; consciousness is a feedback loop of sensory information and mechanical body response.

▲

karunamurti 2 days ago | parent [-]

We simulate biological neurons digitally. Give them enough resources to grow, give basic instructions to do feedback loop and to improve. Maybe even suggest the AI to design mechanical vessel for AI.

That consciousness definition will get blurry fast if we don't know what's going on under the hood.

	▲	greyishblu a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Simulation is not empirical. You cannot swap substrates; brain for computer; and claim that's how a brain, and thus human consciousness works. That would be making a claim about electromagnetism in a computer not human consciousness. Every effort to look under the hood will get blurry. Because we cannot confirm past and future states on long timescales either direction we end up with Gödel's incompleteness; lack of empirical observation of all past and future information means we cannot prove all statements are true. Without observation of all particles ever (impossible) there is never resolving "under the hood". So a seemingly superficial daily life description like a feedback loop of sensory input and mechanical response
	▲	wotamess 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]