4 ms·
This is the best explanation I’ve seen yet of what Deutsch was getting at. I think he actually has a good point. The problem with misapplications of Bayesian pr
by o_nate 4y ago
This is the best explanation I’ve seen yet of what Deutsch was getting at. I think he actually has a good point. The problem with misapplications of Bayesian probability is that they tend to produce a bogus sense of progress while eliding the interesting questions. For example take the hypothetical statement: “The news that a supercomputer has defeated the reigning Go champion has increased the probability that machines are capable of consciousness.” The form of this statement completely obscures the interesting question, which is: What is the causal connection between being good at Go and consciousness. There is an unspoken theory that the two are connected, but the statement offers no evidence for it, and hence is meaningless.
- goatlover 4y agoFor some reason, the Go example reminds me of the monolith in Clarke's 3001 and the protomolecule in The Expanse. The book authors describe both as very advanced technology that lack consciousness. They do what they're designed to do, but they do not experience doing it, and thus lack the advantage of a certain kind of relfective awareness the conscious constructs they create, such as Dave or Miller, do possess. The Star Trek holodeck also sometimes accomplishes this. I have no idea whether it's possible to create a machine that can generate conscious simulations without itself being conscious. But there's no Bayesian reasoning to apply to such scenarios, since we have no idea as of yet. They're philosophical arguments. And applying to that to current technology is misplaced.