= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Strange7 comments on Confused as to usefulness of 'consciousness' as a concept - 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 (229)
Again, I think you're misunderstanding. The metric I'm proposing doesn't measure how well those self-maintenance systems work, only how many of them there are.
Yes, of course we're only really interested in some aspects of self-maintenance. Let's start by counting how many aspects there are, and start categorizing once that first step has produced some hard numbers.
Ahh, OK. The thing is, though... say, a crystal puts atoms back together if you move them slightly (and a liquid doesn't). And so on, all sorts of very simple apparent self maintenance done without a trace of intelligent behaviour.
What's your point? I've already acknowledged that this metric doesn't return equally low values for all inanimate objects, and it seems a bit more common (in new-agey circles at least) to ascribe intelligence to crystals or rivers than to puffs of hot gas, so in that regard it's better calibrated to human intuition than Integrated Information Theory.