= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Coscott comments on L-zombies! (L-zombies?) - 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 (71)
I am not trying to say it would be conscious without being run. (Although I believe it would)
I am trying to say that the computation as an abstract function has an output which is the sentence "I believe I am conscious."
Now I think I agree with you. (Because I think you're using "output" here in the counterfactual sense.)
But now these claims are too weak to invalidate what trist is saying. If we all agree that l-zombies, being the analogue of the calculator that's never switched on, never actually say anything (just as the calculator never actually calculates anything), then someone who's speaking can't be an l-zombie (just as a calculator that's telling us 6 + 9 = 15 must be switched on).
Okay, I guess I interpreted trist incorrectly.
I agree that in order for the L-zombie to do anything in this world, it must be run. (Although I am very open to the possibility that I am wrong about that and prediction without simulation is possible)