3 ms·
I don’t really get the argument either. The author only seems to demonstrate that different observers can make different conclusions from different observations
by tshaddox 4y ago
I don’t really get the argument either. The author only seems to demonstrate that different observers can make different conclusions from different observations of the same phenomena. The author requires consciousness to be observer-independent, but surely that doesn’t also require that all observers are able to correctly conclude whether they’re observing a conscious entity at any given time.
- woojoo666 4y agoYeah, the author claims that consciousness is observer independent, but then creates systems that depend on an "observer" (or rather, an interpreter) to make the system turing complete. The bar of iron isn't conscious or turing-complete just because one person can interpret it so. The bar of iron + the interpreter form a complete system. And in fact the bar of iron is really not doing anything in this case, it's the interpreter doing all the work, so it's more like saying "this human interpreter is conscious". Not a very insightful conclusion.