upvote

points

by ejohansson5 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby matheusmoreira5 hours ago|
[-]
It's a defense of the possibility that animals and AI are conscious.
reply
upvoteby ejohansson5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
ok! I think that's a logical flaw, solipsism is a floor.

"I can't be certain about anyone else" does not imply "all non-self consciousness claims are equally uncertain". absence of certainty and the absence of evidence and all that.

your "possibility" word is doing a lot of work there I think. you should add "rocks" to your list as well and you'd be equally correct, but we're evaluating the candidates here

reply
upvoteby matheusmoreira4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Rocks don't have nervous systems.
reply
upvoteby ejohansson4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Why is that a bar suddenly, if we cannot be sure that anyone other than yourself is conscious?
reply
upvoteby matheusmoreira4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Because it seems illogical, at least to me, to believe that inert objects could be conscious. Brains are as far from inert as can be. Computers are basically magical silicon runes imbued with software, also as far from inert as can be.

Proposed categorization: "definitely not conscious", "maybe conscious" and "definitely conscious". All living things belong in "maybe conscious". Each person is sure that they belong to the "definitely conscious" set, but people cannot prove this to each other. Their empathy causes them to add other people to the "definitely conscious" set. Many choose to add animals to that set too. Some add even inanimate objects to it.

reply