= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on What do rationalists think about the afterlife? - 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 (99)
Yes, actually? To the extent that a worm is aware.
We don't normally use the word "aware" to describe it, but what it's doing seems very, very close to the things we do describe with the word awareness.
Then I've misunderstood your claim. The Hard Problem of Consciousness as popularly understood is that even if we understand all the mechanisms of thought to the point that we can construct brains ourselves, it won't explain the subjective experience we have. We can understand the universe with mathematical precision down to the last photon and it still wouldn't explain it. Seems like a non-empirical question to me. That's why they call it subjective experience.
The common meaning of "empirical" is something based on experience, so it seems that the Hard Problem of Consciousness fits that definition.
No? There is no subjective experience I can have that can distinguish you from a P-zombie (under the (wrong) assumption that the hard-problem even makes sense and that there is a meaningful distinction to be made there)