This discussion, for the most part, exceeds my education and/or abstract thinking ability. To bring the discussion down to my level in at least one thread… a common sense question:
Why are we debating whether consciousness can be simulated? Obviously it can, as it’s been simulated in us. (It’s also rather robust, as it works well in the vast majority of people—even in the presence of many genetic physical deviations and despite other cognitive abnormalities and despite being switched on and off while we’re sleeping.) The question is how and, perhaps -- though I don’t see any reason to be pessimistic, if we as humans are capable of really understanding it.
I’m not debating whether consciousness can be simulated, because we don’t have conclusive evidence to answer that question. (Did many commenters really think I was leaning one way or the other? It might explain the reactions.) I’m just exploring what would logically follow from consciousness being Turing-simulable, and what would follow if not.
I’m just exploring what would logically follow from consciousness being Turing-simulable, and what would follow if not.
I see. It’s been a long time since I critically examined the relationship between what is true in a Turing simulation is what is true in reality … but I’m beginning to remember what those questions were about. (Is reality discrete? Countable? etc.) If you just assume that reality is a Turing simulation for all intents and purposes, like I do most of the time, then the discussion didn’t make sense.
This discussion, for the most part, exceeds my education and/or abstract thinking ability. To bring the discussion down to my level in at least one thread… a common sense question:
Why are we debating whether consciousness can be simulated? Obviously it can, as it’s been simulated in us. (It’s also rather robust, as it works well in the vast majority of people—even in the presence of many genetic physical deviations and despite other cognitive abnormalities and despite being switched on and off while we’re sleeping.) The question is how and, perhaps -- though I don’t see any reason to be pessimistic, if we as humans are capable of really understanding it.
I’m not debating whether consciousness can be simulated, because we don’t have conclusive evidence to answer that question. (Did many commenters really think I was leaning one way or the other? It might explain the reactions.) I’m just exploring what would logically follow from consciousness being Turing-simulable, and what would follow if not.
I see. It’s been a long time since I critically examined the relationship between what is true in a Turing simulation is what is true in reality … but I’m beginning to remember what those questions were about. (Is reality discrete? Countable? etc.) If you just assume that reality is a Turing simulation for all intents and purposes, like I do most of the time, then the discussion didn’t make sense.