the correct position on consciousness is the figure-ground inversion of functionalism
1. this is a shitpost (posts that start with a lower-case letter are usually tongue-in-cheek)
2. functionalism goes "actually, algorithms/mathematical structures are the more fundamental thing (ground), consciousness is just a set of specific patterns instantiated in matter (figure). nothing beyond that" (i think there's two versions, one taking mathematical structures as ground, the other doing a weird hybrid of "algorithms instantiated in matter"). but i claim that 1/2
@cosmiccitizen
the ground is actually consciousness, since that's the thing that is in acquaintance knowledge. you never *see* a rock, it's just that-swirl-of-visual-qualia over there (figure). causality still runs the way it does, but it runs on qualia (panpsychism is a straightforward implication of this *unless* solipsism is true, which I think is scarily likely (nice solution for egoism if you have moral uncertainty!))
mathematical structures: that's where they get you. i don't actually 2/3
know how to deal with algorithms/mathematical structure, because I *really* want to be a mathematical/algorithmic platonist, but if you pressed me to actually present my best-view-considered thought I'd just deny that algorithms exist (which makes difference hard to justify)
I don't deny the hard problem, but I think everybody else misunderstands it ("not about unifying consciousness and matter, but qualia and algorithms")
@cosmiccitizen i will now stop writing about this because the topic is fraught with misunderstanding and subject to much empty debate
@niplav
>subject to much empty debate
no it isn't /s
@niplav
Well obviously I understand exactly what you mean, but perhaps you could spell it out a bit for the idiots in the back.