neurons obey the same laws of physics as everything else
neurons obey the same laws of physics as everything else
I don't get it. If I see for example see a red neon light, I can assume that there is light of a certain wavelength being emitted, can I not? Are you saying that that red light doesn't exist outside my head??
Not sure of what does "outside your head" means. But if you assume that there IS an independent reality and it is exactly as we perceive it to be, I'd tell you that it isn't true.
Most of what comes thought perception is "made-up" by perception itself (or by our nature, as you'll call it). Take for example colours, there are no such thing as colours is physics, there are only wavelengths and other properties if light.
And I'm not saying that physics=truth. The fact that colours doesn't exist in physics should not mean that they "are not real". In fact, they ARE the real thing, every measurement is based on what we can observe in any way, and if there is something that we can't possibly observe then we can't work with that.
To simplify things a bit, let's say that every conclusion that has been made in science come from (the very-human and very-subjective) experience.
Because a color of a certain wave length can be perceived different depending on the receiver.
But the wave length is constant, regardless of the nature of the receptors.
Color is real in all realms of science. Red and every other color have a concrete definition on the magnetic spectrum.
Careful not to overthink here, sure our brains precieve wavelengths, but that does not mean that because it is a perception it can't be a part of science.
Science is collective perception after all and in no way the actual state of reality, which of course is unattainable.
I postulate that those things (the changes in the temperature, the reacting chemicals, etc.) are more real than the light itself. OF course, if you measured the changes in temperature or the reaction of the chemical with another tool, then the measures that are closer to you, verifying them with your own senses, are more real.
This is all in relation to what can be and cannot be questionable in science, as science is about empiric evidence and empiric evidence is nothing but experience itself.
If you want to discover the true state of things (or as Kant said it) the things-in-themselves, then there is nothing that can help you.
IT should be noted that I am not am empiricist, as I do believe also that abstract things suchs as love, thought, etc. can be treated as something real as long as any human can encounter them in their lives.
how are you quantifying "more real"
what would that even mean
something exists or it doesn't
possible no, ethical, sure. There is absolutely no way ever in the history of man will a genuine artificial intelligence be produced, for the reason that the human brain is so complicated and isn't even fully understood. Sure you can program a machine to "think" for itself, but even then, a man made it think. and emotions simply wouldn't work.
Hint: The "proof" of the assumption that the physical universe is the real universe rest upon philosophy. Science can't prove that because science assumes it.
it would just be dissimilar to the human mind
as for emotions, well if you made an AI that could self-improve, it could learn to emulate emotions if it chose to
Moreover, it is just the other way around. We describe physics using our experiences.
All of your thoughts, experiences, actions, and emotions are the product of the motions of particles in your brain. Your entire self is the motions of particles.
Science works on empiric evidence(=experience). If you want to prove something scientifically, then you must obtain evidence that justifies you claim (experience something that justifies your claim).
Since conciousness is something you can only experience in yourself, that isn't scientifically verifiable at all in others.
Physics operates on the assumption that all things are physical and it has proven itself empirically to be capable of making predictions which are very accurate to the things we observe.
Just because a method works well at something doesn't mean that it is capable of defining what is real and what isn't.
The fact that neuroscience is far more computationally complex than something like basic Newtonian dynamics and is a fledgling science does NOT make it any less physically describable than the motions of planets. You're playing god of the gaps with the brain.
Moreover, you can't even imagine how a scientific research made on why does red looks as it does would be made.
that consciousness is entirely the result of physical processes is the simplest explanation that fits the current data, and as such it's the null hypothesis
there's no evidence yet that shows any kind of cartesian duality or whatever, so we go with the null hypothesis
burden of proof etc
Another thing is that a hypothesis exists if it can be verifiable. The hypothesis that consciousness has entirely physical causes isn't verifiable, since you can only experience consciousness in yourself, not in an "exterior reality".
Artificial intelligence could potentially be identical to human intelligence if we ever had the right technology to do it. I'm guessing there can be different forms of AI, for example, multiple "actions" the AI robot is physically programmed by a human to take based on certain information it intakes of its environment vs. the AI robot being able to program itself and "create" actions similar to how humans do it. So to answer the OP's question, it depends on the technology that develops the AI. If we were to create an AI that worked the same way as the human brain does, then it comes down to whether something that didn't come about by natural biological means can be given the same right as something that did?
If by physical reality you mean the reality described by physics then there is no proof that that reality is the "real one", since physics is science, and science is build upon human perceptions.
Michio Kaku believes currently that robots are more like insects. We'd have total control of them honestly, we'd use them to our own benefit. If they wanted rights or something we'd just disable or weaken them.
as for it being verifiable, I'm really not sure how you can say that with a straight face when proposing any alternative like mind-body duality or souls or anything other than that which arises just from fundamental particle interactions
if it comes from something outside physics then it is necessarily nonverifiable, not to mention ridiculously unlikely. please present me with the gigantic amount of evidence you need to even promote such an idea to be worth considering given its astronomical prior unlikeliness.
when you have multiple hypotheses that all predict the same data, you go with the mathematically simplest one - namely the one that doesn't propose dualist voodoo
He also has an awful habit of saying "I think that" and then just stating an established opinion of scientific community as if it's ripped straight from wiki. He didn't invent anything.