5 ms·

> computer-controlled players in games? Nah, I'm not particularly worried about that. Because those are all currently based on models too simple to conceivably

> computer-controlled players in games? Nah, I'm not particularly worried about that. Because those are all currently based on models too simple to conceivably have anything like consciousness. On the other hand, once we can simulate a human and its environment at OpenWorm's targeted level of abstraction, presumably we would have a conscious being there?

reuben364 5y ago
The only consciousness we experience is our own. In the extreme, we can no more say a chair suffers than a human being other than ourselves. Of course we take the pragmatic approach of deciding things that look like suffering to us is suffering.
- mshroyer 5y ago
  I strongly disagree. The human brain, in its connectome, encompasses enough computational complexity to contain consciousness and suffering. A chair does not, at least not based on any model I've yet seen proposed.
  - reuben364 5y ago
    And on what basis do you claim that computational complexity is a necessary condition for consciousness and suffering? There is only one datum you have for consciousness. Other people can tell you that they experience consciousness, but so can a Text-to-Speech program
    - handol 5y ago
      Would you believe that a text-to-speech program was suffering if it told you so?
      - reuben364 5y ago
        > Of course we take the pragmatic approach of deciding things that look like suffering to us is suffering. Hence why I said this. There is nothing you can use to believe a human's claims over the text-to-speech's claims, so we choose what looks like suffering to us. However, my point is that it is an arbitrary choice.
        pjerem 5y ago
        > There is nothing you can use to believe a human's claims over the text-to-speech's claims Of course there is. The human facing me looks similar to me so I can interpolate its claims with my own experience of being an human. I thinks it’s also for the same reason that we have variable degrees of empathy against animals : the more the animal looks like us (that can be size, number of members, physically, in terms of effective communication…), the more, on average, we have empathy for them. This can go to the extent that people commonly feel « something » about their cars and their human-face-like designs combined with their single ability to move.
        reuben364 5y ago
        Yes, but this is arbitrary. That is my point. There's no reason to believe that you can extrapolate your own subjective experience to others based on their similarity to you.
        ImStuckInTime 5y ago
        > However, my point is that it is an arbitrary choice. It does not have to be arbitrary though. We could go by the Turing test. If some text-to-speech could clear it i would believe what it said.
        reuben364 5y ago
        But you are choosing to use the Turing test, which tests a form of intelligence, as a proxy to determine whether to believe the claim. A Turing test does not preclude philosophical zombies. It does not demonstrate anything about consciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
  - scollet 5y ago
    I think a chair does, in it's full life cycle.
    - mshroyer 5y ago
      How, exactly?
      - drsnow 5y ago
        Believe they meant the wood composing the chair came from a tree with complexity enough to be reasonably thought capable of consciousness (on some basic tree level)
        scollet 5y ago
        Yiss. Tree has a different consciousness. Maybe a little bit more abstract.
        scollet 5y ago
        Although a chair does subsume human projection, similar to a Buddhist realization of artifice. A chair serves, regardless of its consciousness, but the human (or mammal stand-in) may project a consciousness of its utility upon the object, thus elevating its stature in a shared conscious. The closest I can think is a friend establishing rules around an heirloom coffee table that enforced coasters and denied foot rest. But I think that more organic models should have that assumption baked in to their more humanistic appropriation. Like we kill a cow for sustenance, but I respect that in purchase by eating it. A table serves me infinitely. And thus it carries the consciousness of the human. Destruction of a utility reflects the human qualities, and so an inanimate object might adopt those qualities independent of time.

reuben364 5y ago

The only consciousness we experience is our own. In the extreme, we can no more say a chair suffers than a human being other than ourselves. Of course we take the pragmatic approach of deciding things that look like suffering to us is suffering.

mshroyer 5y ago
I strongly disagree. The human brain, in its connectome, encompasses enough computational complexity to contain consciousness and suffering. A chair does not, at least not based on any model I've yet seen proposed.
- reuben364 5y ago
  And on what basis do you claim that computational complexity is a necessary condition for consciousness and suffering? There is only one datum you have for consciousness. Other people can tell you that they experience consciousness, but so can a Text-to-Speech program
  - handol 5y ago
    Would you believe that a text-to-speech program was suffering if it told you so?
    - reuben364 5y ago
      > Of course we take the pragmatic approach of deciding things that look like suffering to us is suffering. Hence why I said this. There is nothing you can use to believe a human's claims over the text-to-speech's claims, so we choose what looks like suffering to us. However, my point is that it is an arbitrary choice.
      - pjerem 5y ago
        > There is nothing you can use to believe a human's claims over the text-to-speech's claims Of course there is. The human facing me looks similar to me so I can interpolate its claims with my own experience of being an human. I thinks it’s also for the same reason that we have variable degrees of empathy against animals : the more the animal looks like us (that can be size, number of members, physically, in terms of effective communication…), the more, on average, we have empathy for them. This can go to the extent that people commonly feel « something » about their cars and their human-face-like designs combined with their single ability to move.
        reuben364 5y ago
        Yes, but this is arbitrary. That is my point. There's no reason to believe that you can extrapolate your own subjective experience to others based on their similarity to you.
      - ImStuckInTime 5y ago
        > However, my point is that it is an arbitrary choice. It does not have to be arbitrary though. We could go by the Turing test. If some text-to-speech could clear it i would believe what it said.
        reuben364 5y ago
        But you are choosing to use the Turing test, which tests a form of intelligence, as a proxy to determine whether to believe the claim. A Turing test does not preclude philosophical zombies. It does not demonstrate anything about consciousness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
- scollet 5y ago
  I think a chair does, in it's full life cycle.
  - mshroyer 5y ago
    How, exactly?
    - drsnow 5y ago
      Believe they meant the wood composing the chair came from a tree with complexity enough to be reasonably thought capable of consciousness (on some basic tree level)
      - scollet 5y ago
        Yiss. Tree has a different consciousness. Maybe a little bit more abstract.
      - scollet 5y ago
        Although a chair does subsume human projection, similar to a Buddhist realization of artifice. A chair serves, regardless of its consciousness, but the human (or mammal stand-in) may project a consciousness of its utility upon the object, thus elevating its stature in a shared conscious. The closest I can think is a friend establishing rules around an heirloom coffee table that enforced coasters and denied foot rest. But I think that more organic models should have that assumption baked in to their more humanistic appropriation. Like we kill a cow for sustenance, but I respect that in purchase by eating it. A table serves me infinitely. And thus it carries the consciousness of the human. Destruction of a utility reflects the human qualities, and so an inanimate object might adopt those qualities independent of time.