= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ESRogs comments on an ethical puzzle about brain emulation - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (55)
Could you explain the relevance of the GAZP? I'm not sure I'm following.
Also, would it be fair to characterize your argument as saying that C, D, and E are bad only because they include B as a prerequisite, and that the additional steps beyond just B are innocuous?
I think the relevance of the GAZP was supposed to be reasoning along the lines of:
1) Either (A1) consciousness is solely the result of brain-states being computed, or (A2) it involves some kind of epiphenomenal property.
2) The GAZP precludes epiphenomenal properties being responsible for consciousness.
3) Therefore A1.
The difficulty with this reasoning, of course, is that there's a huge excluded middle between A1 and A2.
For my own part I would not quite agree with this, though it's close.
I would agree that if a scenario includes (B,C,D,E) the vast bulk of the badness in that scenario is on account of B.
There might be some badness that follows from (C,D,E) alone... I certainly have a strong intuitive aversion to them, and while I suspect that that preference would not be stable under reflection I'm not strongly confident of that.