[ExI] Zombie glutamate

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Tue Feb 17 03:16:11 UTC 2015

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015  Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:

> > you would HAVE to behave normally, by definition. The artificial

visual cortex receives input from the optic tracts, processes it, and
> sends output to association cortex and motor cortex. That is its
> design specification.

Then behavior would be the same. And I assume that, although functionally
identical with the same logical schematic, this artificial visual cortex
uses a different substrate such as electronics; otherwise the thought
experiment wouldn't be worth much.

> > That is its ONLY design specification: it is made by engineers who think
> consciousness is bullshit. My point is that such a device would, as an
> unintended side-effect, necessarily preserve consciousness.

I think so too, I would bet my life on it but I can't prove it. I can't
prove or disprove that blind people aren't conscious because it's the
biological visual cortex itself that produces consciousness. And I can't
prove or disprove that people lacking a left big toe are not conscious
because it is that toe that generates consciousness. I think both logical
possibilities are equally likely.

> > If it were possible to make a brain implant that did all the mechanistic
> stuff perfectly but lacked consciousness then you would end up with a being
> that was blind

The being had a working visual cortex, how could it be blind?

> > but behaved normally and thought it could see normally.

And the being was correct, it could see; it was probably conscious too but
it could certainty see.

> > But that is absurd

I'm still not seeing what's absurd.

  John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150216/638236f6/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list