2 ms·
As far as I can tell, the author seems to be trying to simultaneously use two separate definitions of "consciousness": 1. Something which results in "qualia"
by teraflop 3y ago
As far as I can tell, the author seems to be trying to simultaneously use two separate definitions of "consciousness":
1. Something which results in "qualia"
2. Something which arises by a non-mechanistic process
and then is just expecting readers to accept that these two definitions are equivalent. It's the same fatal flaw as the original Chinese Room argument.
- AnotherGoodName 3y agoFor point 2 anything with real world input is non mechanistic since non determinism propagates. Eg. A regular computer with a camera that's programmed to do something if a photon hits a certain pixel is non deterministic. This type of setup is common in our ai systems. I personally do agree that consciousness probably does have an element of non determinism but I don't think that non determinism needs to come from neurons in the brain. We have a whole bunch of non deterministic inputs, consciousness could well come from that and that's true if computers too. In fact it's pretty well accepted there's nothing really quantum about human neurons. So point 2 is very weak.