6 ms·

Sure, why not? That's literally what the materialist definition of consciousness means: it's a process that can be carried out on any appropriately-configured p

Sure, why not? That's literally what the materialist definition of consciousness means: it's a process that can be carried out on any appropriately-configured physical substrate; ours just happens to be neurons.

a_wild_dandan 6y ago
You're describing the systems reply to the Chinese Room Argument[1] and I agree with you. To go further, what else could possibly generate consciousness? A soul? Some phlogiston that breathes fire into beings? I legitimately don't understand what the alternative is to physicalism without positing some completely unsubstantiated Other Thing that also gets us no closer to understanding consciousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Systems_and_virtual_mind_replies:_finding_the_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Systems_and_virtu...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pontus 6y ago
I agree that other mediums (like artificial neurons) would likely still be conscious, but an abstract calculation on a bunch of pieces of papers, possibly spread over years and across multiple people performing the calculations? That seems odd to me. Definitely still "intelligent", but should I feel bad about ripping up those pieces of paper? Should I feel like I'm killing someone by erasing calculations off of the paper or introducing a mathematical mistake somewhere in the middle?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- wvenable 6y ago
  > should I feel bad about ripping up those pieces of paper? Do you feel bad every time you have a beer and potentially kill off a few brain cells?
- jayd16 6y ago
  What does morality have to do with the nature of what is? How you feel about snuffing out some form of consciousness is irrelevant to whether it exists or not.
goatlover 6y ago
The idea that scribbles on a paper would be conscious is really hard to believe. It also sounds like it's own form of dualism that's functional instead of substance-based. I wouldn't consider it a good physical theory of consciousness.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Well, to a panpsychist, there's no reason why "conciousness" would need to stop at a human scale. The universe as a whole might be concious, and part of that concious experience might be isomorphic to the subjective experience of the brain that's being replicated on those pieces of paper. Though I can see how people might object that this is merely conflating "conciousness" with "computation", that's really inherent in what the thought experiment is doing.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  The original claim was lots-and-lots-of-people calculating on many pieces of paper. But it's just an example of this endless stream of sort of ridiculous bait-and-switch arguments. First someone, says "so it's mechanical, so a big, fast, accurate speak-and-spell could simulate it" and you say "well, OK, it would have to be huge, incredibly fast and accurate and so-forth" and then the person "well, I doubt consciousness is just a speak-and-spell.
  - goatlover 6y ago
    If the claim is that certain functions are what "generates" consciousness, then it's fair to ask whether any sort of functional arrangement will do, including writing stuff out on paper. I don't think it matters whether a billion Chinese are busy writing out 1s and 0s, or a computer is moving electrons around. None of that is conscious in my view, or at least I see no reason it would be.
    - joe_the_user 6y ago
      I would sort of agree. Just avoiding first positing "well, even something silly would do" and then saying "well, that proves it's impossible 'cause it's silly". Then the argument is clearly unfair.

a_wild_dandan 6y ago

You're describing the systems reply to the Chinese Room Argument[1] and I agree with you. To go further, what else could possibly generate consciousness? A soul? Some phlogiston that breathes fire into beings? I legitimately don't understand what the alternative is to physicalism without positing some completely unsubstantiated Other Thing that also gets us no closer to understanding consciousness. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Systems_and_virtual_mind_replies:_finding_the_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room#Systems_and_virtu...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pontus 6y ago

I agree that other mediums (like artificial neurons) would likely still be conscious, but an abstract calculation on a bunch of pieces of papers, possibly spread over years and across multiple people performing the calculations? That seems odd to me. Definitely still "intelligent", but should I feel bad about ripping up those pieces of paper? Should I feel like I'm killing someone by erasing calculations off of the paper or introducing a mathematical mistake somewhere in the middle?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wvenable 6y ago
> should I feel bad about ripping up those pieces of paper? Do you feel bad every time you have a beer and potentially kill off a few brain cells?
jayd16 6y ago
What does morality have to do with the nature of what is? How you feel about snuffing out some form of consciousness is irrelevant to whether it exists or not.

goatlover 6y ago

The idea that scribbles on a paper would be conscious is really hard to believe. It also sounds like it's own form of dualism that's functional instead of substance-based. I wouldn't consider it a good physical theory of consciousness.

zozbot234 6y ago
Well, to a panpsychist, there's no reason why "conciousness" would need to stop at a human scale. The universe as a whole might be concious, and part of that concious experience might be isomorphic to the subjective experience of the brain that's being replicated on those pieces of paper. Though I can see how people might object that this is merely conflating "conciousness" with "computation", that's really inherent in what the thought experiment is doing.
joe_the_user 6y ago
The original claim was lots-and-lots-of-people calculating on many pieces of paper. But it's just an example of this endless stream of sort of ridiculous bait-and-switch arguments. First someone, says "so it's mechanical, so a big, fast, accurate speak-and-spell could simulate it" and you say "well, OK, it would have to be huge, incredibly fast and accurate and so-forth" and then the person "well, I doubt consciousness is just a speak-and-spell.
- goatlover 6y ago
  If the claim is that certain functions are what "generates" consciousness, then it's fair to ask whether any sort of functional arrangement will do, including writing stuff out on paper. I don't think it matters whether a billion Chinese are busy writing out 1s and 0s, or a computer is moving electrons around. None of that is conscious in my view, or at least I see no reason it would be.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    I would sort of agree. Just avoiding first positing "well, even something silly would do" and then saying "well, that proves it's impossible 'cause it's silly". Then the argument is clearly unfair.