4 ms·
If we're to assume that consciousness only exists where it is observable, only I exist. All of you are automatons. In fact, because of the fact that it is unob
by sprout 16y ago
If we're to assume that consciousness only exists where it is observable, only I exist. All of you are automatons.
In fact, because of the fact that it is unobservable, you cannot even make a reasonable argument that the netbook I'm typing this on lacks consciousness.
I for example can argue that anything that is executing a series of algorithms as part of a system has consciousness, and therefore this computer is quite conscious, just as I am (even though my series of algorithms is much less well-defined and reproducible.)
- benpbenp 16y agoI personally do not assume that consciousness only exists where it is observable. I am merely interested in the fact that it is unobservable-- and in how that makes it weird and different. Do you agree with me on this point?
- sprout 16y agoYes, but in that it's empirically indistinguishable, from an ethical standpoint we should assume it exists when we see the hallmarks of consciousness (though perhaps the primary hallmark is an intrinsic understanding of the concept itself.)