[ajsocjxhdushz]

> The brain, despite some motivated efforts to demonstrate otherwise, runs on the laws of physics. I'm a doctor, even if not a neurosurgeon, and I can reliably tell you that you can modulate conscious experience by physical interventions. The brain runs on physical laws, and said laws can be modeled. It doesn't matter that the substrate is soggy protein rather than silicon.

As of today’s knowledge. There is an egregious amount of hubris behind this statement. You may as well be preaching a modern form of Humorism. I’d love to revisit this statement in 1000 years.

> That being said, we have no idea what consciousness is

You seem to acknowledge this? Our understanding of existence is changing everyday. It’s hubris and ego to assume we have a complete understanding. And without that understanding, we can’t even begin to assess whether or not we’re creating consciousness.

[AlphaAndOmega0]

Do you have any actual concrete reasons for thinking that our understanding of consciousness will change?

If not, then this is a pointless comment. We need to work with what we know.

For example, we know that the Standard Model of physics is incomplete. That doesn't mean that if someone says that it they drop a ball in a vacuum, it'll fall, we should hold out in studied agnosticism because it might go upwards or off to the side.

In other words, an isolated demand for rigor.

[emp17344]

The existence of consciousness is self-evident, and yet we still have no idea what it is, or how to study it. We don’t have any understanding of consciousness.