You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

the-citizen comments on A few thoughts on a Friendly AGI (safe vs friendly, other minds problem, ETs and more) - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: the-citizen 19 October 2014 07:59AM

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

Comments (44)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: the-citizen 20 October 2014 11:15:45AM *  0 points [-]

I understand, but I just want to urge you to examine the details of that really closely, starting with examining "consciousness"s place in Dualist thought. What I'm suggesting if many of us have got a concept from a school of thought you explicitly disagree with embedded in your thinking, and that's worth looking into. It's always alluring to dismiss things that run contrary to the existence of something we feel is important, but sometimes those rare times when we question our core values and thought that we make the most profound leaps forward.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 20 October 2014 01:07:11PM *  4 points [-]

I urge you to be less of a dismissive, lecturing dick when talking about consciousness.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 October 2014 12:38:43PM 2 points [-]

What I'm suggesting if many of us have got a concept from a school of thought you explicitly disagree with embedded in your thinking,

What concept? The concept of consciousness or the concept of consciousness as fundamental?

Maybe we have a concept of consciousness because we are conscious.

Comment author: the-citizen 20 October 2014 12:52:38PM 0 points [-]

Maybe we have a concept of gods because we are gods? It don't think that logic works. If someone is physicalist then they can't assume consciousness a priori. In which case, how can observation of brains and behaviours justify a concept like consciousness? The only way it can arise is out of a mind-body separation (Dualism).

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 20 October 2014 02:16:50PM *  2 points [-]

Maybe we gave a concept of rocks, because there are rocks.

It isn't a question of all sentences of the form "we have a concept of X because X exists" being analytically true. It is a question of having evidence of specific things. The other minds problem is the other minds problem because we all have evidence of our own minds.

If someone is physicalist then they can't assume consciousness a priori. In which case, how can observation of brains and behaviours justify a concept like consciousness?

1 I am aware of my own consciousness

2 my own consciousness must be an outcome of the physical operation of my brain

3 similarly operating brains must be similarly conscious

Comment author: the-citizen 21 October 2014 07:35:17AM 0 points [-]

See other post. Cheers for discussion.