Finally, being conscious doesn’t mean anything at all. It has no relationship to reality.
What do you mean by “reality”? If you’re an empiricist, as it looks like you are, you mean “that which influinces our observations”. Now what is an “observation”? Good luck answering that question without resorting to qualia.
Does a falling rock also observe the gravitational field?
I’d have to say no here, but if you asked about plants observing light or even ice observing heat, I’d say “sure, why not”. There are various differences between what ice does, what roomba does, and what I do, however they are mostly quantitative and using one word for them all should be fine.
I’d have to say no here, but if you asked about plants observing light or even ice observing heat, I’d say “sure, why not”. There are various differences between what ice does, what roomba does, and what I do, however they are mostly quantitative and using one word for them all should be fine.
What are you basing this distinction on? More importantly, how is whatever you’re basing this distinction on relevant to grounding the concept of empirical reality?
Using Eliezer’s formulation of “making beliefs pay rents in anticipated experiences” may make the relevant point clearer here. Specifically, what’s an “experience”?
I would say that object observes an event if it changes its state in response to this event. Yes, that’s a very low bar. First, gravity, isn’t an event, so “observe” is an awkward word. We can instead “measure” and then observe the results. Of course, if the gravity did change, the rock would presumably change it’s shape a tiny bit, which we may or may not count—that’s fine, “observation” is supposed to be on a spectrum.
Using Eliezer’s formulation of “making beliefs pay rents in anticipated experiences” may make the relevant point clearer here. Specifically, what’s an “experience”?
Experiences are brain states, beliefs are also stored in the brain. Eliezer’s advice is equally good both for you and for a roomba, regardless of which of you is supposedly conscious. It may not work for plants or ice though—I don’t think I can find anything resembling beliefs in them, and even if I could, there would be no process to update them.
What do you mean by “reality”? If you’re an empiricist, as it looks like you are, you mean “that which influinces our observations”. Now what is an “observation”? Good luck answering that question without resorting to qualia.
“observation” is what your roomba does to find the dirt on your floor.
How do you know? Does a falling rock also observe the gravitational field?
The same way I know what a chair is.
I’d have to say no here, but if you asked about plants observing light or even ice observing heat, I’d say “sure, why not”. There are various differences between what ice does, what roomba does, and what I do, however they are mostly quantitative and using one word for them all should be fine.
What are you basing this distinction on? More importantly, how is whatever you’re basing this distinction on relevant to grounding the concept of empirical reality?
Using Eliezer’s formulation of “making beliefs pay rents in anticipated experiences” may make the relevant point clearer here. Specifically, what’s an “experience”?
I would say that object observes an event if it changes its state in response to this event. Yes, that’s a very low bar. First, gravity, isn’t an event, so “observe” is an awkward word. We can instead “measure” and then observe the results. Of course, if the gravity did change, the rock would presumably change it’s shape a tiny bit, which we may or may not count—that’s fine, “observation” is supposed to be on a spectrum.
Experiences are brain states, beliefs are also stored in the brain. Eliezer’s advice is equally good both for you and for a roomba, regardless of which of you is supposedly conscious. It may not work for plants or ice though—I don’t think I can find anything resembling beliefs in them, and even if I could, there would be no process to update them.