Bugmaster comments on Confused as to usefulness of 'consciousness' as a concept - LessWrong

35 Post author: KnaveOfAllTrades 13 July 2014 11:01AM

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

Comments (229)

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

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 15 July 2014 04:58:10PM 6 points [-]

I wasn't thinking about multiplayer games, but rather single-player games with computer-controlled opponents.

In other words, deeper introspection shows that suffering and pleasure aren't terminal values, but are grafted onto a deeper theory of legitimacy.

There are certainly arguments to be made for suffering and pleasure not being terminal values, but (even if we assumed that I was thinking about MP games) this argument doesn't seem to show it. One could say that the rules about legitimacy were justified to the extent that they reduced suffering and increased pleasure, and that the average person got more pleasure overall from playing a competitive game than he would get from a situation where nobody agreed to play with him.

Comment author: Bugmaster 16 July 2014 08:05:16AM 2 points [-]

Are you not employing circular reasoning here ? Sure, shooting computer-controller opponents is ok because they don't experience any suffering from being hit by a bullet; but that only holds true if we assume they are not conscious in the first place. If they are conscious to some extent -- let's say, their Consciousness Index is 0.001, on the scale from 0 == "rock" and 1 == "human" -- then we could reasonably say that they do experience suffering to some extent.

As I said, I don't believe that the words "consciousness" has any useful meaning; but I am pretending that it does, for the purposes of this post.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 16 July 2014 08:27:34AM 5 points [-]

Are you not employing circular reasoning here ? Sure, shooting computer-controller opponents is ok because they don't experience any suffering from being hit by a bullet; but that only holds true if we assume they are not conscious in the first place.

Yeah. How is that circular reasoning? Seems straightforward to me: "computer-controlled opponents don't suffer from being shot -> shooting them is okay".

If they are conscious to some extent -- let's say, their Consciousness Index is 0.001, on the scale from 0 == "rock" and 1 == "human" -- then we could reasonably say that they do experience suffering to some extent.

If they are conscious to some extent, then we could reasonably say that they do experience something. Whether that something is suffering is another question. Given that "suffering" seems to be reasonably complex process that can be disabled by the right brain injury or drug, and computer NPCs aren't anywhere near the level of possessing similar cognitive functionality, I would say that shooting them still doesn't cause suffering even if they were conscious.