| ▲ | hackinthebochs 3 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>If we don't think the candle in a simulated universe is a "real candle", why do we consider the intelligence in a simulated universe possibly "real intelligence"? I can smell a "real" candle, a "real" candle can burn my hand. The term real here is just picking out a conceptual schema where its objects can feature as relata of the same laws, like a causal compatibility class defined by a shared causal scope. But this isn't unique to the question of real vs simulated. There are causal scopes all over the place. Subatomic particles are a scope. I, as a particular collection of atoms, am not causally compatible with individual electrons and neutrons. Different conceptual levels have their own causal scopes and their own laws (derivative of more fundamental laws) that determine how these aggregates behave. Real (as distinct from simulated) just identifies causal scopes that are derivative of our privileged scope. Consciousness is not like the candle because everyone's consciousness is its own unique causal scope. There are psychological laws that determine how we process and respond to information. But each of our minds are causally isolated from one another. We can only know of each other's consciousness by judging behavior. There's nothing privileged about a biological substrate when it comes to determining "real" consciousness. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | hnfong 3 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Right, but doesn't your argument imply that the only "real" consciousness is mine? I'm not against this conclusion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie ) but it doesn't seem to be compatible with what most people believe in general. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||