3 ms·

It seems like you already know the answer. If not, ask ChatGPT :)

Robotbeat 4y ago
Qualia, by definition of being individual subjective experiences, cannot be quantified. Very clever trick, to define consciousness so that no matter what computer you come up with, it cannot be “conscious” because, of course, a computer’s operations are always quantified. The problem, however, is you’re effectively defining consciousness in a way that human brains do not follow unless you make appeals to some supernatural process beyond the reach of science (ie fundamentally subjective, unquantifiable). So again, it’s a bulls*** definition of sentience.
- fasterik 4y ago
  I disagree. I'm a physicalist, so I believe consciousness/qualia emerges from physical processes in the brain. It's absolutely possible for a computer be conscious provided it implements the right kind of computational process. Ultimately, whether or not a system is conscious is an empirical question that neuroscience will be able to answer once we have the right theoretical framework and tools for measuring the relevant variables. I don't know what you mean by it being a BS definition of sentience. It's a technical term invented by philosophers to mean a specific thing. If you don't like it, use a different word.
  - Robotbeat 4y ago
    That is what I mean. /Subjective/ experiences are part of the usual definition of consciousness and sentience. Qualia, as opposed to quantia. If you’re trying to protect the human mind from ever being probably replicable in operation by a machine, it helps to pick an unfalsifiable definition of consciousness and sentience.
    - fasterik 4y ago
      I don't get it. Who are you attributing this view to? I already said that I believe everything about consciousness/qualia/subjectivity are physical and measurable. There is nothing special about the human mind preventing us from replicating it in a machine. Note: you brought up the term qualia, not me. I have never actually liked that term. I prefer the terms "consciousness" and "conscious experience".
      - Robotbeat 4y ago
        Okay, then we are in agreement!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
@Robotbeat Huh? You and I see color, hear sound, etc. I presume you're not insane and that you accept that as true. So what's this about human brains? Are you looking for your lost car keys under the street lamp because that's where the light happens to be on, and then baffled when you don't find them? If science is unable to account for the existence of such experiences, then either they fall outside of science (so what? who said empirical science was the only means of knowing? the claim itself isn't scientific) or science must be revised. And what of the claim that anything that isn't quantifiable is bullshit? Is that quantifiable? No? So it's bullshit?
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  Is the claim falsifiable? If not, then it’s not scientific. Holding up claims to empirical validation (which is very broad and includes observational science, doesn’t have to be traditional experiment alone) is the core of science.

Qualia, by definition of being individual subjective experiences, cannot be quantified. Very clever trick, to define consciousness so that no matter what computer you come up with, it cannot be “conscious” because, of course, a computer’s operations are always quantified. The problem, however, is you’re effectively defining consciousness in a way that human brains do not follow unless you make appeals to some supernatural process beyond the reach of science (ie fundamentally subjective, unquantifiable). So again, it’s a bulls*** definition of sentience.

fasterik 4y ago
I disagree. I'm a physicalist, so I believe consciousness/qualia emerges from physical processes in the brain. It's absolutely possible for a computer be conscious provided it implements the right kind of computational process. Ultimately, whether or not a system is conscious is an empirical question that neuroscience will be able to answer once we have the right theoretical framework and tools for measuring the relevant variables. I don't know what you mean by it being a BS definition of sentience. It's a technical term invented by philosophers to mean a specific thing. If you don't like it, use a different word.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  That is what I mean. /Subjective/ experiences are part of the usual definition of consciousness and sentience. Qualia, as opposed to quantia. If you’re trying to protect the human mind from ever being probably replicable in operation by a machine, it helps to pick an unfalsifiable definition of consciousness and sentience.
  - fasterik 4y ago
    I don't get it. Who are you attributing this view to? I already said that I believe everything about consciousness/qualia/subjectivity are physical and measurable. There is nothing special about the human mind preventing us from replicating it in a machine. Note: you brought up the term qualia, not me. I have never actually liked that term. I prefer the terms "consciousness" and "conscious experience".
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Okay, then we are in agreement!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lo_zamoyski 4y ago

@Robotbeat Huh? You and I see color, hear sound, etc. I presume you're not insane and that you accept that as true. So what's this about human brains? Are you looking for your lost car keys under the street lamp because that's where the light happens to be on, and then baffled when you don't find them? If science is unable to account for the existence of such experiences, then either they fall outside of science (so what? who said empirical science was the only means of knowing? the claim itself isn't scientific) or science must be revised. And what of the claim that anything that isn't quantifiable is bullshit? Is that quantifiable? No? So it's bullshit?

Robotbeat 4y ago
Is the claim falsifiable? If not, then it’s not scientific. Holding up claims to empirical validation (which is very broad and includes observational science, doesn’t have to be traditional experiment alone) is the core of science.