4 ms·

I think there are a lot of differences. Just a few are: * A microchip demonstrates significant changes in state based on tiny differences in input, unlike a r

I think there are a lot of differences. Just a few are: * A microchip demonstrates significant changes in state based on tiny differences in input, unlike a rock. * The power dissipation of a microchip is higher. * A microchip can be designed and programmed to actively resist the increase of local entropy (e.g. it can be part of a robot that cleans up a room). If you believe in the precautionary principle, we should be careful about any action that might potentially create suffering. We are the first species to build computers, and computers are a new thing whose transistors are quite similar to neurons, and neurons definitely feel qualia. I don't think I'm proposing a very big leap and I also don't think you need to believe in panpsychism or in anything religious.

swatcoder 4y ago
> neurons definitely feel qualia You may not grasp the subtlety of what you’re saying here. “Feel” is a word we assigned to our idea of something neurons can do, and use “qualia” as the object of that relationship. When we talk about transistors — which are in fact very different than neurons — “feeling” qualia, we’re proposing that the meaning of these two terms be expanded by analogy. Which is cool. Words do that every day. Some really cool ideas can shake out of it. But it’s a cultural consensus, not an empirical reality.