3 ms·
You may be able to simulate a magnet perfectly, but that doesn't make magnetism. In the same way, you may be able to simulate a mind perfectly, but that doesn't
by tlocke 4y ago
You may be able to simulate a magnet perfectly, but that doesn't make magnetism. In the same way, you may be able to simulate a mind perfectly, but that doesn't make consciousness.
With consciousness, it's about experiencing sensations, what things feel like from the inside, not about any behaviour on the outside.
- arethuza 4y ago"In the same way, you may be able to simulate a mind perfectly, but that doesn't make consciousness." How do we know that?
- red75prime 4y agoThen the analogy shouldn't be with a magnet that creates measurable effects, but with a..., hm, soul, maybe?
- nh23423fefe 4y agoI think you've exposed the dis-analogy by making this argument. A magnet is the cause/source/reason for/generator of/<insert verb> of a magnetic field. If you put a test charge in a field you can detect a magnet. So you argue, no simulation of a magnet produces a magnetic field. I assume you mean that you can produce data which would characterize a field were the real world in the state that you simulated. Then you say a simulated mind doesn't produce consciousness because consciousness is internal not external. Simulating a mind and interacting with it is just behavior checks. This doesn't make sense then. With magnets you say, "there needs to be a physical field present." But with minds you say, "there needs to be undetectable internal experiences, just reporting and observing behavior isn't consciousness" This is a dis-analogy.
- hackinthebochs 4y agoThis analogy just begs the question. The issue of consciousness is whether it is purely a functional/dynamic state of a system or whether it is a basic atomic kind that cannot be further decomposed. For example, a simulation of carbon isn't carbon but a simulation of disorder is in fact disordered in some sense.