5 ms·

The real question here is: what difference does it make? The person in the room is useful for the people outside. I like the Dijkstra quote here: "The question

The real question here is: what difference does it make? The person in the room is useful for the people outside. I like the Dijkstra quote here: "The question of whether machines can think is about as relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim." No matter how you define "swimming", the submarine works and is useful.

tim333 11y ago
>what difference does it make? I guess it touches on whether machines will be able to have conscious experience similar to ours and if so will we be able to achieve immortality through uploading.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Will machines be able to have a conscious experience that is similar to ours, probably not, as they're working with different starting materials which are handled in entirely different ways. Still conscious in some ways, probably yes. Conscious enough to discuss it with us and iron out the subjective differences? Maybe eventually. Will we be able to upload ourselves and maintain our biological consciousness? No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from-- the current problem with saying machines are conscious still applies.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from [...] You are making an arbitrary choice here - why the neurons? Why not the whole brain? Some structure within the brain? The molecules making up the neurons?
    - cryoshon 11y ago
      We know people can have only 50% of a full brain and yet be conscious, and we also know that destruction of a few tiny pieces of the brain can result in a loss of consciousness in the sense we mean it here. The commonality is that neuron systems are required; individual neurons are not enough, nor is an entire intact animal brain without certain structures. The line is arbitrary, but it doesn't matter so much. The factual reality is that neuron systems are what we can currently (currently! this may change) prove gives rise to consciousness, regardless of philosophical attempts at violence against the science.
      - ThomPete 11y ago
        Sorry but thats actually wrong. Read this: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116 http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116
        cryoshon 11y ago
        This merely supports my hypothesis that neuron systems are what is needed... you will notice nobody is claiming that there are conscious people with 0% brain matter remaining.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        You wrote this: "We know people can have only 50% of a full brain" And so the question is how you define a full brain. Neuron systems are network. It might as well be that a network is needed not the neurons per se.
  - murbard2 11y ago
    > No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from-- Who's "we", you p-zombie?
throwupper247 11y ago
*Dijkstra
Confusion 11y ago
If 'swimming' is simply defined as 'having the ability to move through water', then a submarine that can not 'swim' is useless. Similarly, whether a machine can conceivably 'think' is very relevant. We are asking whether a machine can do certain specific things a human can do and are hard to envision a machine doing. Whatever your response to the Chinese room argument (and more sophisticated variations), it will be a part of your theory of mind that is not obviously correct and will not be accepted by all others without further support.

tim333 11y ago

>what difference does it make? I guess it touches on whether machines will be able to have conscious experience similar to ours and if so will we be able to achieve immortality through uploading.

cryoshon 11y ago
Will machines be able to have a conscious experience that is similar to ours, probably not, as they're working with different starting materials which are handled in entirely different ways. Still conscious in some ways, probably yes. Conscious enough to discuss it with us and iron out the subjective differences? Maybe eventually. Will we be able to upload ourselves and maintain our biological consciousness? No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from-- the current problem with saying machines are conscious still applies.
- danbruc 11y ago
  No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from [...] You are making an arbitrary choice here - why the neurons? Why not the whole brain? Some structure within the brain? The molecules making up the neurons?
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    We know people can have only 50% of a full brain and yet be conscious, and we also know that destruction of a few tiny pieces of the brain can result in a loss of consciousness in the sense we mean it here. The commonality is that neuron systems are required; individual neurons are not enough, nor is an entire intact animal brain without certain structures. The line is arbitrary, but it doesn't matter so much. The factual reality is that neuron systems are what we can currently (currently! this may change) prove gives rise to consciousness, regardless of philosophical attempts at violence against the science.
    - ThomPete 11y ago
      Sorry but thats actually wrong. Read this: http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116 http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6116
      - cryoshon 11y ago
        This merely supports my hypothesis that neuron systems are what is needed... you will notice nobody is claiming that there are conscious people with 0% brain matter remaining.
        ThomPete 11y ago
        You wrote this: "We know people can have only 50% of a full brain" And so the question is how you define a full brain. Neuron systems are network. It might as well be that a network is needed not the neurons per se.
- murbard2 11y ago
  > No, neuron systems are the only substrate on which we can currently confirm that consciousness arises from-- Who's "we", you p-zombie?

throwupper247 11y ago

*Dijkstra

Confusion 11y ago

If 'swimming' is simply defined as 'having the ability to move through water', then a submarine that can not 'swim' is useless. Similarly, whether a machine can conceivably 'think' is very relevant. We are asking whether a machine can do certain specific things a human can do and are hard to envision a machine doing. Whatever your response to the Chinese room argument (and more sophisticated variations), it will be a part of your theory of mind that is not obviously correct and will not be accepted by all others without further support.