There is no particular difference between a simulation that uses true physics[tm] or at least the abstraction necessary and the ‘real’ action.
The person that you are is also not implied by the matter or the actual hardware you happen to run on, but by the informational link between all the things that are currently implemented in your brain. (Memory and connections—to simplify that.)
But there is no difference between a solution in hardware or software. One is easier to maintain and change, but it can easily behave the same from the outside.
An upload could still be running the same things your brain does. Giving the same results. It just does not seam right because there is no physical body lying around.
I actually have problems with accepting the concept of Qualia in the first place. But why they should go away just because you replace parts of your hardware with identical items fails me. Simone is real—all 3 of them.
And while you do not perceive the paper version as really interacting with you, she surely does experience her self. If you stop calculating her, you basically freeze her in time.
My solution would be to take away the term of consciousness altogether. Or to find a way to actually test for it. An AI that claims to be un-conscious would be a weird experience, and i have no clue for how to make sure she actually is not conscious.
The term gets used so much in various media, that it really seems like a magic marker like emergency or complexity.
Maybe the impression of human conscious arrives because we have memories, we can think internally, and because on average there is a tendency to behave consistently. But i also have enough experience that makes me doubt the consciousness of specific people.
We all just operate on piles and piles of environmental data. And that you can do in wetware, electronics or on paper.
Upvoted and disagreed.
There is no particular difference between a simulation that uses true physics[tm] or at least the abstraction necessary and the ‘real’ action.
The person that you are is also not implied by the matter or the actual hardware you happen to run on, but by the informational link between all the things that are currently implemented in your brain. (Memory and connections—to simplify that.) But there is no difference between a solution in hardware or software. One is easier to maintain and change, but it can easily behave the same from the outside. An upload could still be running the same things your brain does. Giving the same results. It just does not seam right because there is no physical body lying around.
I actually have problems with accepting the concept of Qualia in the first place. But why they should go away just because you replace parts of your hardware with identical items fails me. Simone is real—all 3 of them. And while you do not perceive the paper version as really interacting with you, she surely does experience her self. If you stop calculating her, you basically freeze her in time.
My solution would be to take away the term of consciousness altogether. Or to find a way to actually test for it. An AI that claims to be un-conscious would be a weird experience, and i have no clue for how to make sure she actually is not conscious. The term gets used so much in various media, that it really seems like a magic marker like emergency or complexity.
Maybe the impression of human conscious arrives because we have memories, we can think internally, and because on average there is a tendency to behave consistently. But i also have enough experience that makes me doubt the consciousness of specific people.
We all just operate on piles and piles of environmental data. And that you can do in wetware, electronics or on paper.