4 ms·

>There's nothing arbitrary about it. All of those ("thought", "doubt", "inner monolog") go hand in hand with consciousness in the common sense, and at worst cas

>There's nothing arbitrary about it. All of those ("thought", "doubt", "inner monolog") go hand in hand with consciousness in the common sense, and at worst case, they are phenomena that presuppose it (secondary effects). Again an arbitrary definition based on a human centric view. It's quite possible that we will develop an AI that would fall under what we would consider consciousness that has no inner monolog, on the other hand it's also quite possible that we'll develop AIs that come no where near consciousness with one. Consciousness as you continue to use it is an utterly arbitrary and irrelevant definition you can set an arbitrary benchmark for any arbitrary type of consciousness you want this is simply defining heuristics which is while can be a useful tool in some cases is not natural law or anything other than arbitrary. > Else a Rumba is also conscious. And what would be the problem or wrong with that? If the definition that supports Rumba being a conscious contraption is a useful heuristic model for you then use it there is no wrong or right with arbitrary definitions there is just useful or not.

coldtea 8y ago
>And what would be the problem or wrong with that? That, like the rest of the arguments, it would expand the reach of consciousness so much as to make it meaningless.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  Again meaningless or meaningful is only dependent on the heuristics you find useful. By the same definition the mental masturbation which is a Boltzmann brain is just as meaningless and even more so especially due to the lack of unbound randomness in the universe and the fact that the number of failure states needed to create one in the first place is considerably greater than all the possible states of all the atoms in the universe :) It’s essentially the infinity monkey theorem it’s mathematically correct but physically impossible.

coldtea 8y ago

>And what would be the problem or wrong with that? That, like the rest of the arguments, it would expand the reach of consciousness so much as to make it meaningless.

dogma1138 8y ago
Again meaningless or meaningful is only dependent on the heuristics you find useful. By the same definition the mental masturbation which is a Boltzmann brain is just as meaningless and even more so especially due to the lack of unbound randomness in the universe and the fact that the number of failure states needed to create one in the first place is considerably greater than all the possible states of all the atoms in the universe :) It’s essentially the infinity monkey theorem it’s mathematically correct but physically impossible.