Philosophy bros come

Okay am I off the goop or does this argument follow?

p1: If we say consciousness/qualia/experience comes from the physical reality of the brain reacting
p2: brains are just neurons firing or not firing in a very complex chain (so a binary just like pc's)
p3: we could construct some kind of wooden board with pegs that when some ball is drops in goes through some 'algorithm' exactly the same as the brain
c: therefore: the wooden board has some experience

So the only two possible options is that
if p1 is true; just a wooden board could 'experience' as we can if made big/complex enough
or
if p1 is false, 'experiencing' doesn't exist within the 'physical plane' as we know it but some sort of meta-physical thing

inb4 some variation of allat

Ain't understanding allat

Allat

SKRossi clears philosophy

idk man i did phil back in 22 so i cant remember shit

im not a philosophy bro but tell me how consciousness is determined only by those processes
You are simplifying brain by comparing it too much to binary system like pegs

2 soul 1 body

The argument you're describing seems to rely on the assumption of functionalism in philosophy of mind. This is the idea that what is important about the mind and mental states (like experiences or qualia) is not their physical substrate but their functional organization.

Your argument does seem to follow logically from the premises, but only if we assume that consciousness arises purely from the complex functioning of physical systems. It might go something like this:

Consciousness arises from the physical reality of brain activity (Premise 1).
Brain activity can be described as a complex, binary process of neurons firing or not firing (Premise 2).
We can hypothetically create a physical system (like a wooden board with pegs and balls) that mirrors the binary processing of the brain (Premise 3).
Therefore, if we recreate the functional organization of the brain in this different physical system, it should also have consciousness (Conclusion).
However, there are some challenges and counterarguments:

Consciousness might not be solely a product of binary processes. The brain isn't just neurons firing or not firing; it's also the unique structure and connectivity of these neurons, the different types of neurons, the chemicals they release and respond to, and much more. The argument simplifies the reality of the brain's operation.

Even if consciousness arises from the physical activity of the brain, it might not be reducible to or replicable in a binary system. This is because it might depend on specific physical properties of the brain that can't be replicated in other materials or systems.

There's the "hard problem" of consciousness, which is the question of why and how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences or qualia. Even if we could replicate the brain's functional organization in another system, we don't know if that would be enough to produce consciousness.

If we assume the opposite (P1 is false), it doesn't necessarily imply that consciousness is metaphysical or exists outside the physical plane. It could just mean that our understanding of consciousness and the physical brain is incomplete.

well then we come across the problem of schrodingers problem in which the neurons are eliminated from the process as we say the P1 disables far then what do you? well neutons problem solves that with the e=mc3 and that actually enables it again so is there an a rguement? yes yes there is well if u see the problem with schrodingers problem is that it doesnt really disable it so what is the use of neutons problem so mc3 is used again and then neutons problem disables it we have come across the problem P2 ALSO enables it again which in fact in order the P1[ i will speak in greek now]wwowoowwoow owaakakrnfklml4mkefkjwke wwowowowowow so that enables it and that is my tthesis

penrose (one of the greatest minds behind the thinking of not computational consciousness) answers almost everything in this video with peterson: https://youtu.be/Qi9ys2j1ncg
hope you enjoy it

In my opinion p1 is true.

If you learn more about how neural networks work in AI you'll find that the method to construct a machine-learning algorithm takes inspiration from the idea of neurons firing.

That being said, the concept of "experience" is an entirely different issue.

I can make a simple, one-way web of artificial neurons (Multi-layer perceptron) and teach them to recognize letters in an image, but I can't I can't ask it to draw those letters. It only recognizes but it doesn't understand.

You can make a multi-way web of neurons all firing at each other to remember certain patterns in images (Hopfield neural networks), but you can't "teach" it, only make it remember.

You can make have a self-teaching one-way web of artificial neurons that starts off doing something random, but who's success given a certain criteria (kills, score, items obtained) serves as a validation method to slowly change its neuron configuration to whatever maximizes that score. You can even teach it to draw something.

But none of these things have anything you could consider a conscious. You could try to combine them to mimic a human, which has already been done, but we know from the exact values of every neuron exactly what they'll do given any situation. Their responses are all mathematically calculated, and it's impossible to tell if they're really just experiencing something or if its just a machine following the precise instructions we gave it.