4 ms·
This isn't clear at all how it reaches the conclusion...it seems to jump to its conclusion with no justification other than "anything else is absurd because I s
by vokep 8y ago
This isn't clear at all how it reaches the conclusion...it seems to jump to its conclusion with no justification other than "anything else is absurd because I said so".
Of course the conclusion is absurd, because the premise: someone executing assembly instructions and writing results on a ledger could do so at a scale capable of simulating consciousness over any significant time scale. The time required for a person to do such simulation of just 1 second of conscious existence would likely take more than their lifetime.
Consciousness is universally present. That doesn't mean rocks are conscious, no more than it means sand can compute. And yet we're communicating over computing sand, aren't we?
- whack 8y agoYour objection is explicitly addressed in the linked article. > "Assumption 5: The fact that a computer simulation can be conscious, is independent of the CPU speed of the computer." Do you disagree with this assumption? Is it your argument that a "slow" computer can never be considered to be conscious, even if it's given sufficient time to run the exact same software? If so, how are you deciding what the cutoff frequency should be?
- vokep 8y agoNo, thats exactly my point, a person carrying out computations by pen and paper on a massive ledger could emerge self-aware intelligent consciousness, and if such a thing were to occur, than any unethical things that the computer (as in the person writing on the ledger) created in this consciousness would be just as unethical as anywhere else, and such a person should be tried for crimes. It's argued that this is absurd because how could a persons activities on a private ledger be examined as a crime? But this absurd sort of crime investigation is not absurd at all in the context of someone able to simulate consciousness on a ledger. If a couple has a child and somehow does it all secluded, at home, they are just rearranging atoms until consciousness emerges. Then they lock the child up. How could such private activity that both parties consent to, be considered a crime? Because we have solid reason to believe a new "soul" exists which requires ethical treatment. It no longer is entirely private. I'm happy to continue discussion, its good to challenge views and while I think there is this error in your conclusion, you do a good job of defending and explaining your position.