[ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Mon Apr 3 05:46:03 UTC 2017


On Apr 2, 2017 22:46, "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:




It is not obvious that a computation about nature can be conscious, but
neither is it obvious that it cannot.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


On 3 April 2017 at 14:17, Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 2, 2017 22:46, "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It is not obvious that a computation about nature can be conscious, but
> neither is it obvious that it cannot.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> All the 'computations about nature' that have ever been and will ever be
> discussed in this list were *designed by conscious beings*, also known as
> consciousness.
>
> You're making the same mistake as the Chinese Room, which is neglecting
> the fact that someone had to build the room itself.
>


Are you implying that it would make a difference how the entity whose
consciousness was in question was made? For example, consider three
identical robots, one made by humans, the second by weird aliens, the third
thrown together from spare parts by a tornado: would you expect that they
would have different consciousnesses?

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170403/2e3ed3fb/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list