Doesn't it worry dualists / free will people that materialists

>>1678920
quantum delayed eraser -> simulation -> top down recursion -> conciousness

The lack of existence of free will contradicts phenomenological observation, as from your first-person perspective you make choices that influence your future based on criteria. Whether or not you were "always going to make these choices" means nothing because, phenomenologically, you're still making decisions. I could care less about whether or not determinism is reality, all I care about is logical validity and soundness, and phenomenological reasoning is the only logically valid and sound line of reasoning you can procure through your first-person perspective, because that's literally what your perception of reality is sourced in.

If you observe yourself holding an apple, apples objectively exist. If you observe yourself making choices, choices objectively exist.

If you think you have any way of observing reality outside of phenomenology, please, by all means, explain.

>>1678920
>Dualism can be explained as the fact that a brain doesn't know what it looks like, and doesn't recognise itself.
But I know what my brain looks like, and with sufficient education might be able to recognize my brain. Unless you're on some weird tangent about how "the brain doesn't have eyes lol". Except it does.

>>1679063
Yes but imagine looking at a scan of your brain. Areas light up as you think. Would you think "that's me on the screen!" or would you think "my brain is lighting up!"

Humans evolved to recognise humanoids as persons. So humans find it hard to accept that they are actually mostly a lump of water inside a head.

People seem uncomfortable with saying a system can be self-aware, without any part of it being self-aware. They want a magic special part that will make decisions in some absolute moral sense, but there is no such place, there is just a brain that takes it's own actions into account.

But if you think about it, self-awareness couldn't work any other way. You shouldn't want another kind of self-awareness.

>>1679075
>humans find it hard to accept that they are actually mostly a lump of water inside a head.
How does this = "a brain doesn't know what it looks like, and doesn't recognise itself."

A brain can absolutely know what it looks like, and recognize itself. It doesn't matter if it's "hard", it being hard and possible is infinitely separate from it being impossible. Don't contradict yourself you stupid fuck, how hard is it to maintain a consistent line of reasoning? Getting frustrated with this shit on this board.

>>1678920
Being consistent with your own theory is a basis for the plausibility of your beliefs, not a proof.

A dualist/free will believer could also explain those facts just as well with their dualism. Dualism can be explained by the fact that qualia cannot be reduced quantitatively into material term and that only physical phenomena that corresponds to certain qualia have been discovered, as opposed to something that it is directly identical with. Therefore through the understanding of the gulf between qualia and quantitative material phenomena, dualism becomes the theory to go to.

Physicalism can also by explained by the dualist.

Because we are divided beings and one part takes on the role of observer and the other takes on the role of observed the observer cannot observe itself. So the observer takes on physicalism based only on what it can observe, ignoring its own observation due to confusion.

Determinism can be explained as the mind trying to make all of reality conform to quantitative physicalist explanations in a newtonian fashion, confusing how Newtonian Physics looks only for what is determinable in the first place with reality itself being fully determinate. It does this again, because it is confused due to it's own status

>>1679055
>as from your first-person perspective you make choices that influence your future based on criteria
That is where the mistake lies.

"Something" is observed to "act", but there is no reason to assume it originates from an arbitrary point in space. In fact, it seems illogical to think that when you look at the necessary properties of "something" once you discard all unfounded assumptions.