Some argue that bots should be entitled to ingest any content they see, because people can.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s just ridiculous imo, it seems like they’re afraid of the idea that maybe we’re just automata with a different set of random inputs and flaws. And to me, that’s the kind of idea that the problem of consciousness is trying to explore.

    But if you just say, “no, that’s off limits,” that’s not particularly helpful. Science can give us a lot of insight into how thoughts work, how people react vs other organisms to the same stimuli, etc. It can be studied, and we can use the results of those studies to reason about the nature of consciousness. We can categorize life by their sophistication, and we can make inferences about the experiences each category of life have.

    So I think it’s absolutely a problem that can and should be studied and reasoned about. Though I can see how that idea can be uncomfortable.

    • RickRussell_CA@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, it’s a “problem” for philosophers. I don’t think it’s a “problem” for neurology or hard science, that’s the only point I was trying to make.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ah, I thought you were talking about philosophy.

        But it’s still relevant for neuroscience since we need to understand how brain chemistry impacts the mind to create effective treatments. So not knowing how the mind works is a problem that may limit our ability to solve problems. But there’s plenty we can and have done without understanding where consciousness comes from.