= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
eternal_neophyte comments on [Link] First almost fully-formed human [foetus] brain grown in lab, researchers claim - 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)
Comments (40)
I fail to see how you could derive that it's unconscious either way.
I am not sure what does "conscious" mean in this context.
In the context of ethics most likely something like the capacity for suffering, or for any kind subjective experience.
That doesn't help me -- essentially, you just replaced the word "conscious" with the word "suffering" and that does not clarify much.
Let's try it this way. Here is a black box with something inside it. It does not communicate in any way that's meaningful to you. How can you decide whether it's conscious or capable of suffering? What would you need to measure or observe? What are your criteria?
Tabooing doesn't work here, you can only taboo your terms so far before you've completely severed yourself from the semantics of your language. If you don't understand what suffering is at a visceral level then no experimental contrivance will clarify the notion for you.
That's pure hand-waving.
Look: "I think this rock here is suffering. I can't prove it, but if you don't feel it at a visceral level then no experimental contrivance will clarify it for you"
I'm not claiming that rocks or artificially grown foetal brains are suffering. The people involved in this research claim they aren't - if the meaning of that claim is unclear the onus is on them to clarify it. Until such a time we are all at liberty to filter that claim through our own intuitively constructed concepts.
We are, of course, at liberty. However it seems to me you don't want them to satisfy their own definition -- that would be too easy -- you want them to satisfy your definition, but for that you should have an idea of what you want clarified and what criteria do you expect to be met. Demanding that they clarify something to the satisfaction of your "visceral level" is still hand-waving.
How could I say either way when they don't offer any definition to begin with? My original complaint was precisely that consciousness is not sufficiently well understood to allow anyone to be cavalier about these things in either direction.
The only one who has demanded that a concept be defined to his satisfaction here is you, when you explicitly requested a definition of suffering in terms of literal significance.
If you already have some idea of what the word "consciousness" means, you want to be reassured that the brain tissue in question is not conscious according to your idea.
I doubt you will let "them" define consciousness any way they wish. For example, I can say "X suffers iff X can communicate to me that it wants the current condition to stop". Will you be happy with that? Probably not.