It seems to me this is the case.
Thanks, interesting view, and work. I was hoping for that kind of material posting this.
Thanks. I think it is a sober objection. I think there could be situations when it is true, nevertheless as long as that god would seem logically impossible (although human logic could be false and God's one true). I think it is in the realm of possibility that some form of computer-simulated entities are conscious with enough of computing power and it is one of widely accepted assumptions, so I think it can for now be used as an argument in some discussions. I see the second option as simpler (when we think in terms of axioms, assume our logic is right and we understand it, and if God has incoherent properties)
I agree. What I think is that under the computational theory of mind, or some similar approaches, like integrated information theory, possibly under the broader spectrum of views, assuming consciousness emerges from information being processed in certain ways, the interpretation I've described can be more solid. For now, it is rather assumed some form of computationalism has great chances to turn out to be true, that's why I think it can be important to determine its possible implications.
It can be the case. I personally think there could be a way, but it is rather beyond the scope of my post.
I understand. Yet it is still unclear to me what would be going on with consciousness if we cut the brain in two and create a situation described above.
It is good. Thank You and sorry for the trouble
It is exactly what I think, neurons are just a useful example. It is a more pictorial and heuristic (also probably it seems more "real" than abstract) way of imagining.
This is built on that assumption, of course. An assumption I do not hold at all. But that does not matter, what do are logical implications and correlations, and I am curious about that only.
Of course, It is no doubt one can think in an entirely different way and care about many more than suffering, most people do so. This post wasn't intended to show suffering is the only thing we should care about (it may be true, it may not, also depend on how do we define suffering - I claim here we can treat life as a negative state, as suffering sensu lato,), It just gives a sense of possible reasoning IF assume only suffering is important. Of course, the measure is crucial and situations of small measure, in general, should be considered less serious. I would make an exception when it comes to the possible astronomical amount of suffering though. Also much depend on how do You define things (it can be argued we care only about the subjective experience if every motive can be reduced to "egoism")