3 ms·
It's accepted that we are, by consensus, because of what we experience individually. We know that scientific proof is lacking, although perhaps scientists in th
by jasfi 3y ago
It's accepted that we are, by consensus, because of what we experience individually. We know that scientific proof is lacking, although perhaps scientists in the field may disagree, I don't know for sure.
- awestroke 3y agoI know I'm conscious, but I cannot assume that you are conscious, perhaps you are just a stochastic parrot? The only reasonable solution is to assume that anything that passes a true, well executed Turing test is conscious
- jasfi 3y agoIf you know I'm a human being, like you are, then you can safely assume I'm conscious. As far as writing messages alone, that could be software.
- awestroke 3y agoWhy can you assume other humans are conscious?
- jaybrendansmith 3y agoHas someone written a better Turing test, like the Voight-Kampff test in Blade Runner, but to establish a conscious mind?
- JieJie 3y agoThe difficulty is creating a test that passes all known humans, as well as some animals; while failing machine algorithms meant to reproduce human and animal behavior. Like so many fixed things in life, "consciousness" seems to be a frontier, not a demarcation. For instance, if you're having a lucid dream, are you conscious or unconscious? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
- fasterik 3y agoEvery human has roughly the same nervous system, with the same structure and functional properties. Unless consciousness is some magical non-physical thing (which we have no reason to believe), it would be absurd to believe that that a healthy, awake, non-brain-damaged person isn't conscious.