I'm a software engineer, completing 10 years of professional experience this year. I started my career as a web frontend engineer (it was easier for me to de...
You want to make this a matter of philosophy, and then you suck at philosophy. Hey buddy, do you have facts about other real people’s experiences, or do you just have beliefs? Could you even demonstrate your own conscious experience to me?
And all of this is such tired Philosophy 101 crap, just so you can cling to ‘aha but what if,’ even though I have a concrete answer for what-if. Are we ruling out magic? Great, then physics can be simulated and a computer can host a mind that way. Its experiences would be identical to any free-range meatbag. If it wrote a book, you could read it. That would be real art. So in what fucking manner is its consciousness not real experience?
When you said, “If a simulated person experiences consciousness, that experience is real”, you’re just saying “If my statement is true then my statement is true.” You offer no basis for assuming that “a simulated person experiences consciousness” in the first place. You are simply assuming it. Your whole side of this entire conversation is just an assumption.
physics can be simulated
Yes and the simulation is a different physical process than the process that it’s simulating.
‘If it happens, it counts’ is not a tautology when you insist happening and counting are different things. To the guy in the simulation, any experience is real. His consciousness entails all the processes you insist must be accounted for. It works the exact same way as it does in real life with real meat.
If you would insist ‘well that’s only simulating consciousness’ - that counts.
To the guy in the simulation, any experience is real.
Again, you have no basis for claiming that there is experience in the simulation in the first place. If you set up some simulation to mimic human behavior there’s no reason to assume that it is experiencing that behavior. You’re putting an assumption here.
If you would insist ‘well that’s only simulating consciousness’ - that counts.
I never insisted that it’s “only simulating consciousness.” I’m rejecting the baseless assertion that consciousness is what’s being simulated. If you simulate the physical processes that we associate with consciousness (neural networks), even if it produces enough observable behaviors that we find the model useful, it is still a different physical thing and therefore we are unable to assert that it is experiencing consciousness.
Simulating physics from first principles is not “mimicking human behavior.” Don’t dismissively phrase it like a chatbot. If you insist the exact molecular exchanges in human neurons are a mandatory component, you could observe every subatomic event, not just the fact they talk to you like any other meatbag on the street.
I never insisted that it’s “only simulating consciousness.”
You just did! Again! You think an entire simulated human being, that acts exactly like a living person for the same underlying reasons, must be different - somehow. Your consciousness only arises from the laws of physics and the shape of matter, but if we simulated both of those exactly, and got indistinguishable results, then nuh-uh.
This is dualism. This is Descartes torturing dogs and insisting they only act like they feel pain, unlike us real humans, because we’re different and special. It’s straight-up Chinese Room horseshit, where no demonstrable evidence of conscious thought is enough, unless it fits your preconceived notions of what minds look like.
Simulating physics from first principles is not “mimicking human behavior.”
Our “first principles” are knowledge, not a new universe. You’re not absolutely re-creating the entirety of reality. You’re making a model that is useful, something that is “good enough” that it will produce outputs that can be used to roughly predict the outcome of real processes.
You think an entire simulated human being, that acts exactly like a living person for the same underlying reasons, must be different - somehow
No matter how detailed your simulation is, it’s still physically different. You’re admitting this every time you call it a simulation. You can tell the difference between a simulation and the thing it’s simulating.
This is dualism
No, because I’m saying that consciousness is a physical process. You’re saying that it’s a mathematical process and that the substrate doesn’t matter. I’m saying the substrate is a physical thing, and that consciousness is a physical processes, and so different substrates enable different physical processes. I don’t claim that consciousness comes from some Beyond, or from Heaven, or from God. I’m saying it’s a physical process, and that a simulation is a different physical process, no matter how detailed.
You can tell the difference between a simulation and the thing it’s simulating.
The premise is - you fucking can’t. It acts ex-act-ly like the real thing, and for all the same reasons. Given that unreasonably high standard, you still insist, nuh uh. Would never be conscious. We’re beyond ‘but what if.’ You’re explicitly arguing that machine consciousness would not count. That any difference from exactly how humans work cannot be a mind. Fuck off. That’s just novel bigotry. Dog-torturing prejudice.
If you can have a long-ass argument with someone and go away figuring they’re a person like you - that’s consciousness. That’s the only way you can judge the inner life of any person you have ever met. And you want to pretend that someone meeting that standard, while you observe their brain at a subatomic level, is disqualified? Come back and fuck off again.
You cannot laud the perfect exactitude of… squishy biology and quantum foam… and still say nuh-uh when a whole-ass person arises from those exact processes. If you mean anything when you say it’s all just physics, then whatever physics are required for consciousness, can be faked. The resulting person really does think, as surely as an emulated calculator does real math. It’s not simulating math. It’s doing math. The device is simulated, but the answers are real. Get it?
The premise is - you fucking can’t. It acts ex-act-ly like the real thing, and for all the same reasons
You literally made the simulation, so yes you can tell the difference. And the math is inevitably different, because the math of the simulation includes the math which defines the different substrate. So it is physically different, a different thing. Assume whatever you want, but in the end it is a physically different thing, and it takes different math to fully describe it. We only know for sure that conscious experience happens with this substrate.
k
You’re just throwing the assumption of experience into the sentence for no reason. You have beliefs about this stuff, not facts.
Do you know what if means?
You want to make this a matter of philosophy, and then you suck at philosophy. Hey buddy, do you have facts about other real people’s experiences, or do you just have beliefs? Could you even demonstrate your own conscious experience to me?
And all of this is such tired Philosophy 101 crap, just so you can cling to ‘aha but what if,’ even though I have a concrete answer for what-if. Are we ruling out magic? Great, then physics can be simulated and a computer can host a mind that way. Its experiences would be identical to any free-range meatbag. If it wrote a book, you could read it. That would be real art. So in what fucking manner is its consciousness not real experience?
Hello.
When you said, “If a simulated person experiences consciousness, that experience is real”, you’re just saying “If my statement is true then my statement is true.” You offer no basis for assuming that “a simulated person experiences consciousness” in the first place. You are simply assuming it. Your whole side of this entire conversation is just an assumption.
Yes and the simulation is a different physical process than the process that it’s simulating.
‘If it happens, it counts’ is not a tautology when you insist happening and counting are different things. To the guy in the simulation, any experience is real. His consciousness entails all the processes you insist must be accounted for. It works the exact same way as it does in real life with real meat.
If you would insist ‘well that’s only simulating consciousness’ - that counts.
Again, you have no basis for claiming that there is experience in the simulation in the first place. If you set up some simulation to mimic human behavior there’s no reason to assume that it is experiencing that behavior. You’re putting an assumption here.
I never insisted that it’s “only simulating consciousness.” I’m rejecting the baseless assertion that consciousness is what’s being simulated. If you simulate the physical processes that we associate with consciousness (neural networks), even if it produces enough observable behaviors that we find the model useful, it is still a different physical thing and therefore we are unable to assert that it is experiencing consciousness.
Simulating physics from first principles is not “mimicking human behavior.” Don’t dismissively phrase it like a chatbot. If you insist the exact molecular exchanges in human neurons are a mandatory component, you could observe every subatomic event, not just the fact they talk to you like any other meatbag on the street.
You just did! Again! You think an entire simulated human being, that acts exactly like a living person for the same underlying reasons, must be different - somehow. Your consciousness only arises from the laws of physics and the shape of matter, but if we simulated both of those exactly, and got indistinguishable results, then nuh-uh.
This is dualism. This is Descartes torturing dogs and insisting they only act like they feel pain, unlike us real humans, because we’re different and special. It’s straight-up Chinese Room horseshit, where no demonstrable evidence of conscious thought is enough, unless it fits your preconceived notions of what minds look like.
Our “first principles” are knowledge, not a new universe. You’re not absolutely re-creating the entirety of reality. You’re making a model that is useful, something that is “good enough” that it will produce outputs that can be used to roughly predict the outcome of real processes.
No matter how detailed your simulation is, it’s still physically different. You’re admitting this every time you call it a simulation. You can tell the difference between a simulation and the thing it’s simulating.
No, because I’m saying that consciousness is a physical process. You’re saying that it’s a mathematical process and that the substrate doesn’t matter. I’m saying the substrate is a physical thing, and that consciousness is a physical processes, and so different substrates enable different physical processes. I don’t claim that consciousness comes from some Beyond, or from Heaven, or from God. I’m saying it’s a physical process, and that a simulation is a different physical process, no matter how detailed.
The premise is - you fucking can’t. It acts ex-act-ly like the real thing, and for all the same reasons. Given that unreasonably high standard, you still insist, nuh uh. Would never be conscious. We’re beyond ‘but what if.’ You’re explicitly arguing that machine consciousness would not count. That any difference from exactly how humans work cannot be a mind. Fuck off. That’s just novel bigotry. Dog-torturing prejudice.
If you can have a long-ass argument with someone and go away figuring they’re a person like you - that’s consciousness. That’s the only way you can judge the inner life of any person you have ever met. And you want to pretend that someone meeting that standard, while you observe their brain at a subatomic level, is disqualified? Come back and fuck off again.
You cannot laud the perfect exactitude of… squishy biology and quantum foam… and still say nuh-uh when a whole-ass person arises from those exact processes. If you mean anything when you say it’s all just physics, then whatever physics are required for consciousness, can be faked. The resulting person really does think, as surely as an emulated calculator does real math. It’s not simulating math. It’s doing math. The device is simulated, but the answers are real. Get it?
You literally made the simulation, so yes you can tell the difference. And the math is inevitably different, because the math of the simulation includes the math which defines the different substrate. So it is physically different, a different thing. Assume whatever you want, but in the end it is a physically different thing, and it takes different math to fully describe it. We only know for sure that conscious experience happens with this substrate.
k
k
good bye