>>12844703It's simple, actually.
We have no evidence of anything metaphysical. We can only work with the physical. Anything beyond is /x/-tier.
So, we should start with what we know, and can detect and measure.
Since we haven't studied or performed any material experiments on consciousness to fully exclude physical explanations, there is no reason to think it cannot be caused by material.
The best hypothesis in my opinion is that consciousness is an emergent property from perception.
You and I only exist in the present. This snapshot of time that we call "now" is, as far as we know, the only thing that exists and is real. The past is just whatever a brain can muster to remember.
The analogy I often give is that consciousness is the self-aware AI of the universe. The mind is the software, the brain is the code and algorithms it follows, and the entire system is the universe. Whatever input that AI receives is analogous to our senses, and the output, whatever this AI spits out, is everything we do in this world.
This is not implying that the universe is a simulation or that it was created by a creator. Rather that the material exists, and we interact with it based on our memories, thoughts, and perception.
One way to falsify this hypothesis would be, similar to what can be done to an AI by not giving it any input, examine the neuroactivity of a newly-born standalone brain floating in a jar, sustained to be alive. This brain will have minimal to no neuroactivity since all its senses have been taken away.
Will this brain develop into an adult brain? Or will it stay smooth, waiting perceive, to be conscious or "alive"?
The reason why you need this brain to be newly-born is because an adult brain will still have memories, thoughts, and experiences that it can use to imagine, and think, to simulate in its mind a physical world it can "live" in, which would appear as a neuroactive brain.
If a study like that takes place, the results will have huge implications.
