2 ms·
False dichotomy. It's consistent to claim that sentience is an aspect of physical but not readily observable processes, where "not readily observable" could in
by andrewflnr 4y ago
False dichotomy. It's consistent to claim that sentience is an aspect of physical but not readily observable processes, where "not readily observable" could in this case be as trivial as "requires access to mindstate, so fMRI in humans" and still distinguish sentience from a thin appearance of it.
- antibasilisk 4y agoNot so, since without a living non-sentient brain for comparison, it would be impossible to distinguish the mindstate that produces sentience from random noise, and since we're presumably accepting that humans are sentient no such brain could exist in the first place.