[vidarh]

It is reasonable to infer, but we have no evidence of it.

E.g. if we were in a simulation, you'd expect any NPCs in said simulation to be designed to act exactly as if they were even if they were not.

We take it on faith because it's feels right and makes sense, not because we know.

> And there is a lot known about the neural correlates of consciousness, what's happening in the brain during events people will then report as being aware of, and how that differs from events they won't report having been aware of.

This tells us which events people report having been aware of, yes, but it doesn't tell us if that is actually true. We're accepting it as true because we have no better option.

And that's fine, as long as we're aware that when we reject the possibility of consciousness elsewhere, that our knowledge of our own self-wareness is fundamentally based on trusting self-reporting.

[furyofantares]

That's fine, you're down to really only having evidence of your own awareness at that point and rejecting everything else too.

There's nothing wrong with that but it's not really useful in any setting where you're accepting all the things people normally accept, and then just pointing at "I think therefore I am is all I actually have to evidence for" when there's a specific thing you don't want to take on.