= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Oscar_Cunningham comments on Minimum computation and data requirements 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 (81)
He is probably talking about the hard problem of consciousness, e.g. whether qualia exists. While it's possible conceptually to have empirical tests for subjective consciousness, it's seems extremely unlikely.
We can already imagine a computational simulation of the brain, and empirical test for qualia seems impossible pretty much by definition. Sure, it's possible to test whether the simulation has self-awareness from a computational point (and it will have that since it's a human brain simulation).
If there is a (physical) cause for qualia, such that qualia occur if and only if that cause is present, and we work out what that cause is, then we have an empirical test for subjective conciousness.
I wouldn't call that, "extremely unlikely".
Yet qualia cannot be measured empirically (atleast that's the consensus), which makes such tests extremely unlikely. And this discussion seems to turn into a regular qualia debate. I'm not sure if that's desirable.
Yet. No one knows what science doesn't know.
I agree that it's not desirable.