3 ms·
The author's "fallacy" isn't so much a fallacy as much as it is one particular (and rather unsurprising) opinion on how to answer the questions that Aaronson an
by throwawaysocks 10y ago
The author's "fallacy" isn't so much a fallacy as much as it is one particular (and rather unsurprising) opinion on how to answer the questions that Aaronson and Hanson have asked.
In this sense, the author fundamentally misses the point of what Aaronson and Hanson have written. Aaronson and Hanson seem to be primarily interested in identifying questions and exploring the problems that arise when trying to give simple answers to those questions.
The fact that the author is able to quickly and cleanly resolve his personal belief about how these questions should be answered doesn't indicate that the questions are easy to answer or even that there is an obviously correct answer. At least any more than a Christian's belief in God cleanly settles the question of whether God exists.
- exolymph 10y agoI wish you'd explain why you disagree with my answer.
- glifchits 10y agoI think what throwawaysocks is saying is that your refutation doesn't really add value to the discussion. I agree with you, that my clone's consciousness is not my own consciousness, but what are the deeper implications? Particularly when we start to consider AI, and its not your own human consciousness but rather an artificial one, does our notion of "murder" change? Then they question, is true "cloning" even possible? (Aaronson uses quantum uncertainty to say 'no', but Hanson claims 'yes' given total understanding of the brain.) Thanks for your article, I'm personally on your side but this whole debate has really made me think.