5 ms·

> But it's impossible to communicate directly with the United States as a self-aware entity, or to have a direct conversation with a collective. Would you expe

> But it's impossible to communicate directly with the United States as a self-aware entity, or to have a direct conversation with a collective. Would you expect one of your cells to be capable of carrying a conversation with you? ("No.") Then why would you expect a "cell" (citizen) of the United States to be able to communicate with it? > This matters because you could ask ten representatives of the US for their opinion on something and get ten conflicting answers - without essentially damaging the concept of "US-ness."... It's not the same as a single consciousness changing its mind, because there is no recognisable single mind that changes. You could also stimulate ten neurons separately and receive 10 differing responses. And when a person changes their mind, there is also no recognizable single neuron that has changed.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The first point is begging the question. Clearly, humans and many animals communicate. Do countries communicate with each other in similar ways? They can appear to. But in fact there's no communication independent of the individuals who represent the countries. The entities called "Russia" and "United States" are wholly defined by the contents of the embodied minds of their representatives. There is no way "United States" can change its mind during an international negotiation independently of any of its representatives. If it did they would suddenly stop pushing one line and start pushing a different line for no obvious reason. I'm not aware of this ever happening. Compare that with human and animal communication. So far as I know, my self awareness isn't defined by a shared description and belief in "Me" across all my neurons. If you pull an individual neuron out of my brain it won't have any concept of anything, never mind of "Me." So the two processes are completely different. One is the flocking behaviour of (semi)intelligent agents. The other is an emergent property of units that have almost exactly zero intelligence and awareness individually, but somehow combine to produce something that has much more.
- mdpopescu 11y ago
  There is no way "United States" can change its mind during an international negotiation independently of any of its representatives. This is provably false unless you are adding hidden assumptions. It is easily shown in the case of some bureaucracies that a person will have a hard time getting something out of them, even though no single person will claim to be the one stalling the request. From the outside, the bureaucracy behaves as if it has a different goal than the (stated) goal of each individual.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

The first point is begging the question. Clearly, humans and many animals communicate. Do countries communicate with each other in similar ways? They can appear to. But in fact there's no communication independent of the individuals who represent the countries. The entities called "Russia" and "United States" are wholly defined by the contents of the embodied minds of their representatives. There is no way "United States" can change its mind during an international negotiation independently of any of its representatives. If it did they would suddenly stop pushing one line and start pushing a different line for no obvious reason. I'm not aware of this ever happening. Compare that with human and animal communication. So far as I know, my self awareness isn't defined by a shared description and belief in "Me" across all my neurons. If you pull an individual neuron out of my brain it won't have any concept of anything, never mind of "Me." So the two processes are completely different. One is the flocking behaviour of (semi)intelligent agents. The other is an emergent property of units that have almost exactly zero intelligence and awareness individually, but somehow combine to produce something that has much more.

mdpopescu 11y ago
There is no way "United States" can change its mind during an international negotiation independently of any of its representatives. This is provably false unless you are adding hidden assumptions. It is easily shown in the case of some bureaucracies that a person will have a hard time getting something out of them, even though no single person will claim to be the one stalling the request. From the outside, the bureaucracy behaves as if it has a different goal than the (stated) goal of each individual.