= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nyan_sandwich comments on The raw-experience dogma: Dissolving the “qualia” problem - 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 (340)
thanks for the port.
Next up we should extend it with free will and true knowledge (causal entanglement).
And I think someone asked about not demonstrating qualia sameness in the absence of truthful reporting.
(I'm not going to waste more time on any of this, but it could be done)
If you mean this... to be clear, I didn't complain about it not demonstrating "qualia sameness". I complained (implicitly) that the claim that it demonstrated all the properties that some people claim demonstrate qualia in real-world systems (like people) was demonstrably false.
(In particular, that it didn't demonstrate anything persistent across different reporting, whereas my own experience does demonstrate something persistent across different reporting.)
I agree that actually recoding it to demonstrate such persistence is a waste of time; far simpler is to not make such over-reaching claims.
I removed "complained".
Point taken. As I tried to explain somewhere, it was all the properties that I thought of at the moment, with the implicit assertion that the rest of the properties could be demonstrated as required.
Point taken.