= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
PhilGoetz comments on Outline of a lower bound for consciousness - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (110)
I can understand your worries. It doesn't actually say that you can prove a lack of consciousness; but that you can prove that, under certain conditions, the meaning of the concepts in the mind would be underdetermined; and argues that you don't need to treat such an entity as conscious.
A fuller treatment would talk about what parts of the mind are conscious, or which concepts are accessible to consciousness. I don't think consciousness is a 0/1 binary distinction for an entire brain.
Too conservative?
How about, "further study is probably needed"?
(deleting comment, hopefully before google spiders it up)
Want me to delete mine?
Okay. It seems innocuous to me, but when I imagine what would happen if Richard Dawkins had made the same joke online somewhere, deleting it seems like a good idea.
Upon reading it again (and with some input from a friend who is a logician - he said that this is something that he said I should have been able to understand myself - and upon going over it with him again, I discovered he was right), I get that there is this distinction now.
I don't think consciousness is necessarily a binary distinction for any part of the brain, or any thing for that matter. This does mean that it could be 0/1, but that it is likely that most things capable of exhibiting conscious behavior lie between the two degrees.