There is a way in which people believe video game characters, tigers, and human beings to be conscious. That doesn’t preclude believing in another way that any of them is conscious.
Tigers are obviously conscious in the no-nonsense sense. I don’t think anything is conscious in the philosobabble sense, i.e. I don’t believe in souls, even if they’re not called souls; see my reply to arundelo. I’m not sure which sense you consider to be the “ordinary” one; “conscious” isn’t exactly an everyday word, in my experience.
Video game characters may also be obviously conscious, but there’s probably better reason to believe that that which is obvious is not correct, in that case. Tigers are far more similar to human beings than they are to video game characters.
But I do think that we shouldn’t casually dismiss consciousnesses that we’re aware of. We shouldn’t assume that everything that we’re aware of is real, but we should consider the possibility. Why are you so convinced that video game characters don’t have subjective experiences? If it’s just that it’s easy to understand how they work, then we might be just as “non-conscious” to a sufficiently advanced mind as such simple programs are to us; that seems like a dubious standard.
Why are you so convinced that video game characters don’t have subjective experiences?
The default for 99.99% of people is to not believe that video game characters are conscious. It’s so common a belief that I am justified in assuming it unless you specifically tell me that you don’t share it. You haven’t told me that.
Firstly, it seems more accurate to say that the standard default belief is that video characters possess awareness. That the vast majority rationalize their default belief as false doesn’t change that.
Secondly, that’s argumentum ad populum, which is evidence—Common beliefs do seem to be usually true—but not very strong evidence. I asked why you’re as confident in your belief as you are. Are you as convinced of this belief as you are of most beliefs held by 99.99% of people? If you’re more (or less) convinced, why is that?
Thirdly, you seem to be describing a reason for believing that I share your belief that video game characters aren’t sentient, which is different from a reason for thinking that your belief is correct. I was asking why you think you’re right, not why you assumed that I agree with you.
Having confidence in the belief is irrelevant. Assuming that you agree with it is relevant, because
1) Arguments should be based on premises that the other guy accepts. You probably accept the premise that video game characters aren’t conscious.
2) It is easy to filibuster an argument by questioning things that you don’t actually disagree with. Because the belief that video game characters aren’t conscious is so widespread, this is probably such a filibuster. I wish to avoid those.
Eliezer suggested that, in order to avoid acting unethically, we should refrain from casually dismissing the possibility that other entities are sentient. I responded that I think that’s a very good idea and we should actually implement it. Implementing that idea means questioning assumptions that entities aren’t sentient. One tool for questioning assumptions is asking “What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?” Or, in less binary terms, why do you assign things the probabilities that you do?
Now do you see the relevance of asking you why you believe what you do as strongly as you do, however strongly that is?
I’m not trying to “win the debate”, whatever that would entail.
Tell you what though, let me offer you a trade: If you answer my question, then I will do my best to answer a question of yours in return. Sound fair?
I said no such thing.
There is a way in which people believe video game characters, tigers, and human beings to be conscious. That doesn’t preclude believing in another way that any of them is conscious.
Tigers are obviously conscious in the no-nonsense sense. I don’t think anything is conscious in the philosobabble sense, i.e. I don’t believe in souls, even if they’re not called souls; see my reply to arundelo. I’m not sure which sense you consider to be the “ordinary” one; “conscious” isn’t exactly an everyday word, in my experience.
Video game characters may also be obviously conscious, but there’s probably better reason to believe that that which is obvious is not correct, in that case. Tigers are far more similar to human beings than they are to video game characters.
But I do think that we shouldn’t casually dismiss consciousnesses that we’re aware of. We shouldn’t assume that everything that we’re aware of is real, but we should consider the possibility. Why are you so convinced that video game characters don’t have subjective experiences? If it’s just that it’s easy to understand how they work, then we might be just as “non-conscious” to a sufficiently advanced mind as such simple programs are to us; that seems like a dubious standard.
The default for 99.99% of people is to not believe that video game characters are conscious. It’s so common a belief that I am justified in assuming it unless you specifically tell me that you don’t share it. You haven’t told me that.
Firstly, it seems more accurate to say that the standard default belief is that video characters possess awareness. That the vast majority rationalize their default belief as false doesn’t change that.
Secondly, that’s argumentum ad populum, which is evidence—Common beliefs do seem to be usually true—but not very strong evidence. I asked why you’re as confident in your belief as you are. Are you as convinced of this belief as you are of most beliefs held by 99.99% of people? If you’re more (or less) convinced, why is that?
Thirdly, you seem to be describing a reason for believing that I share your belief that video game characters aren’t sentient, which is different from a reason for thinking that your belief is correct. I was asking why you think you’re right, not why you assumed that I agree with you.
Having confidence in the belief is irrelevant. Assuming that you agree with it is relevant, because
1) Arguments should be based on premises that the other guy accepts. You probably accept the premise that video game characters aren’t conscious.
2) It is easy to filibuster an argument by questioning things that you don’t actually disagree with. Because the belief that video game characters aren’t conscious is so widespread, this is probably such a filibuster. I wish to avoid those.
Eliezer suggested that, in order to avoid acting unethically, we should refrain from casually dismissing the possibility that other entities are sentient. I responded that I think that’s a very good idea and we should actually implement it. Implementing that idea means questioning assumptions that entities aren’t sentient. One tool for questioning assumptions is asking “What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?” Or, in less binary terms, why do you assign things the probabilities that you do?
Now do you see the relevance of asking you why you believe what you do as strongly as you do, however strongly that is?
I’m not trying to “win the debate”, whatever that would entail.
Tell you what though, let me offer you a trade: If you answer my question, then I will do my best to answer a question of yours in return. Sound fair?
I’m assuming that you assign it a high probability.
I personally am assigning it a high probability only for the sake of argument.
Since I am doing it for the sake of argument, I don’t have, and need not have, any reason for doing so (other than its usefulness in argument).