Took the survey, but I was very unsure of what a lot of the options meant. "Consciousness is different than the subject?" That doesn't make much sense to me as a sentence, much less a concept.

I also didn't know a lot of the divisions between the groups to identify with - there were 5 or 6 subcategories of 'transhumanist', and I didn't want to take 10 minutes to look up which ones I am. I would have left those blank or hit a 'I don't know what this is' button, but the survey didn't allow it.

I have a solution to the problems of other minds, actually. But it requires you to recognize that you are conscious yourself, which is not necessarily possible for all people.

Check: physicalism.com And: qualiacomputing.com/2015/03/31/a-solution-to-the-problem-of-other-minds/

Yeah, I did not expect 15-20 min, with no indication of the progress thus far. Maybe if it showed "page 10 of 25" or something...

Warning: the survey is very long, I gave up after a few pages.

Also, fix the links, half of them point to lesswrong.

This is an awesome, awesome, awesome post! I think you have nailed a few important axis of variance that we usually neglect.

Now, precisely because you are still part of the community and can accept rationalist memes, you are an important sample to learn what the rationalist community is not. At least what it is not necessarily.

Would you, and any other self-identified rationalist sidekick, please fill out this survey?

I am analyzing how personality is related to beliefs about consciousness and memetic affiliations. If only heroes fill out the questionnaire, I may associate traits that are not actually relevant for rationality with rationality.

Personally, I think that the difference you are pointing out ultimately comes down to testosterone, and relatedly, Aspergers.

I'm currently running a study on personality and consciousness in the transhumanist community. The questionnaire also inquires into the possible effects of Aspergers in memetic affiliations.

Of course, LessWrongers are an important piece of the puzzle. Please help me by answering this survey:

qualiacomputing.com/2015/07/18/state-space-of-background-assumptions/

My guess is that there are several variables that are indeed positively correlated throughout the entire range, but are particularly highly correlated at the very top. Why not? I'm pretty sure we can come up with a list.

Did you know that we already have instances of things that pass the Turing test?

And more surprisingly, that we don't generally consider them conscious?

And the most amazing of all: That they have existed for probably at the very least a hundred thousand years (but possibly much more)?

I am talking about the characters in our dreams

They fool us into thinking that they are conscious! That they are the subjects of their own worlds just as people presumably are when awake.

You can have a very eloquent conversation with a dream character without ever noticing there is any apparent lack of consciousness. You can even ask them about their own consciousness (I have done so).

The riddle to why this is possible involves a very deep state of affairs that we are scarcely aware of in daily life. Namely, that your phenomenal self is, just as well, a dream character.

Sources?

Maybe I should get a blood test.