[ExI] Zombie glutamate
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...
More information about the extropy-chat