4 ms·

> People lacking sight, hearing, mobility, and similar would disagree. I think "to see" is meant as a placeholder for any kind of sensory input. I doubt that p

> People lacking sight, hearing, mobility, and similar would disagree. I think "to see" is meant as a placeholder for any kind of sensory input. I doubt that people who lack any form of sensory input with no way to communicate would disagree even if they could -- while they are in that state. As somebody who experienced some knock-out after an accident, I'd say the consciousness is a fragile something (but uses any straw to re-establish itself).

JoshTriplett 9y ago
> I doubt that people who lack any form of sensory input with no way to communicate would disagree even if they could -- while they are in that state. If you're in a sensory deprivation tank, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? If you were in a perfect one, or you had something that somehow cut off the connection between the brain and the body, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? The ability to interact with the world certainly makes life nicer, but consciousness does not depend on that.
- stewbrew 9y ago
  The situation is different since the body is still intact. You and those people are not talking about copying the whole body though but about copying just the brain -- or rather some information that was extracted from the lump of cells that constitute the organ "brain".
- lev99 9y ago
  Even if it isn't a prerequisite without I/O there would be two challenges. 1. How do we prove it is conscious. 2. How do we gain value from it if we cannot interact from it.
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  > If you were in a perfect one, or you had something that somehow cut off the connection between the brain and the body, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? I think, if such an unlikely scenario were possible, that disturbing insanity would result, and eventually it would degrade into something that does not resemble human consciousness. The reality check provided by sensory input stabilizes and fosters consciousness. Perhaps it is possible to design a conscious machine that would be more robust against sensory deprivation, but humans certainly don't have that characteristic. A good example of this is the very damaging effects of solitary isolation prison cells.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Consciousness does depend on it. You cannot mature a recognisably human consciousness without input from the world and from other humans. And after you mature a human consciousness, you need to keep it busy with external stimuli, otherwise it becomes badly damaged - as anyone who has spent a long time in solitary will tell you. If you cut off all stimuli for long enough, you’ll have something left in your tank, but it won’t be sane enough to be recognisably human.

JoshTriplett 9y ago

> I doubt that people who lack any form of sensory input with no way to communicate would disagree even if they could -- while they are in that state. If you're in a sensory deprivation tank, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? If you were in a perfect one, or you had something that somehow cut off the connection between the brain and the body, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? The ability to interact with the world certainly makes life nicer, but consciousness does not depend on that.

stewbrew 9y ago
The situation is different since the body is still intact. You and those people are not talking about copying the whole body though but about copying just the brain -- or rather some information that was extracted from the lump of cells that constitute the organ "brain".
lev99 9y ago
Even if it isn't a prerequisite without I/O there would be two challenges. 1. How do we prove it is conscious. 2. How do we gain value from it if we cannot interact from it.
dwaltrip 9y ago
> If you were in a perfect one, or you had something that somehow cut off the connection between the brain and the body, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? I think, if such an unlikely scenario were possible, that disturbing insanity would result, and eventually it would degrade into something that does not resemble human consciousness. The reality check provided by sensory input stabilizes and fosters consciousness. Perhaps it is possible to design a conscious machine that would be more robust against sensory deprivation, but humans certainly don't have that characteristic. A good example of this is the very damaging effects of solitary isolation prison cells.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
Consciousness does depend on it. You cannot mature a recognisably human consciousness without input from the world and from other humans. And after you mature a human consciousness, you need to keep it busy with external stimuli, otherwise it becomes badly damaged - as anyone who has spent a long time in solitary will tell you. If you cut off all stimuli for long enough, you’ll have something left in your tank, but it won’t be sane enough to be recognisably human.