>>5964325
not that anon, but. you don't "know", but you just know. if you don't know that you are conscious you are literally an npc.
>What's the difference?
between consciousness and simulation of consciousness? technically speaking, that doesn't even make sense because consciousness cannot be simulated, as it refers to the inherently subjective experience of the world, whereas "simulation" refers to a substitution of an actual experience (like flying, driving, whatever) by a virtual experience, where both of these experiences, the actual and the virtual, refer to outer component or environment of the experience.
so the question you are really asking is whether consciousness can arise by imitation of material processes which are considered to be linked to consciousness. this is a highly speculative question as we have practically no understanding at all of the phenomenon of consciousness, but it already implicitly presumes that consciousness itself arises from material processes, which to me seems like a bogus idea, but whatever. but even if that was the case, there is no reason why it should arise from the imitation of these material processes. the entire consideration is just really stoner-tier philosophy and the best argument for entertaining this sort of reasoning is to say that "by occam's razor we should prefer a materialistic explanation of consciousness over a non-materialistic one because it makes less demands of reality", which still is extremely stupid because we don't even have any explanation of consciousness to begin with and occam's razor doesn't really make a claim about what reality possible can be but only about what an effective description of reality is supposed to be.
