Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Silas comments on GAZP vs. GLUT - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 April 2008 01:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (166)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Silas 07 April 2008 01:53:58PM 2 points [-]

Wow, a lot of things to say at this point.

Eliezer Yudkowsky: First, as I started reading, I was going to correct you and point out that Daniel Dennett thinks a GLUT can be conscious, as that is exactly his response to Searle's Chinese Room argument, thinking that I didn't need to read further. Fortunately, I did read the whole thing and find out, when I look at the substance of what the two of you believe, it's the same. While Dennett would say that the GLUT running in the Chinese Room is conscious, what you were really asking was, what is the source of the consciousness? Since that GLUT would have to be written by a consciousness, you two are in agreement.

Second, I don't think you have ruled out (shown to be low enough) the possibility of randomly picking out a GLUT that just happens to be conscious. While there is a low probability of picking *just* the right GLUT that happens to implement *just* the right lookup table, it's no different than any of the other unlikely things that had to happen for us to all be here. I mean, a certain group of people will point to the low probability of physical constants being just right/self-replicating molecules forming/single-celled organisms becoming multicellular/wing or flagellum or cell or blood clotting evolving, as evidence it couldn't have happened by chance (that there was a consciousness behind it). In response, one can just point to the anthropic principle -- why wouldn't that apply here? We could only be here to observe the universes where random processes grabbed that one GLUT that implemented something functionally similar to consciousness.

Finally, I had assumed through this series of posts that you were taking some position sharply divergent from Dennett. I mean, if the whole concept of qualia is incoherent, a universe lacking that incoherence isn't so impossible, right?

Comment author: Kenny 26 February 2013 06:57:04PM 3 points [-]

While there is a low probability of picking just the right GLUT that happens to implement just the right lookup table, it's no different than any of the other unlikely things that had to happen for us to all be here.

No. No. No. No. No.

The probability of picking the "just the right" GLUT is vastly smaller than any mere physical chain of events – there's no chance!