= 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)
How do you know that you are doing the experiencing? It's because the system you call "you" is the one making the observations about experience.
Likewise here, the one driving the comparisons and doing the reporting seems to be the one that should be said to be experiencing.
Of course once the architectural details are allowed to affect what you think of the system, everything goes a bit mushy. What if I'd written it in haskell (lazy, really nonstandard evaluation order)? What if I never ran the program (I didn't)? What if I ran it twice?
And which one is that? Both the software and the hardware could be said to be. But your compu-qualia are accessible to the one, but not the other!
Haskell doens't do anything. Electrons pushing electrons does things.