= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
skepsci comments on GAZP vs. GLUT - 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 (166)
Ahemhem. Haskell is as fine a turing complete language; we just like to have our side effects explicit!
Also, can we just conclude that "consciousness" is the leakiest of surface generalizations ever? If I one day get the cog-psy skills I am going to run a stack-trace on what makes us say "consciousness" without knowing diddy about what it is.
As a budding AI researcher, I am frankly offended by philosophers pretending to be wise like that. No. There is no such thing as "consciousness" because it is not even a bucket to put things in. It's metal shreds. You are a some sort of self-introspective algorithm implemented on a biochemical computing substrate, so let's make the blankness of our maps self-evident by calling it "magic" or something.
Glaring redundancy aside, isn't "self-introspective" just as intensionally valid or void as "conscious"?
Yes, probably. It is a really good idea to taboo any and all of "conscious," "self-<anything>," "introspective," "thinking," and so on when doing AI work, or so I heard.