Thread

1. sobiolite · 1789570479 · focus · HN ↗

   Create an empirically testable theory of biological consciousness and then we can have a meaningful conversation about whether AIs can also have it or not. Until then, this is just so much waffle.

   1. collingreen · 1789571411 · focus · HN ↗

      It's nice when you can set an impossibly high bar before which you can dismiss all your personal responsibility.

      Does this argument work equally well for human slavery for you? We haven't met that bar for humans either. Is wondering about my consciousness waffle or do I get a pass in your book?

      1. sobiolite · 1789594576 · focus · HN ↗

         No, I would say that any for or against slavery that is rooted in arguments about the presence of absence of consciousness is meaningless pseudoscience. It is the modern equivalent of Phrenology. If you want to make those arguments you need a genuine science of consciousness. Or you need to base your morality in something other than the presence of consciousness.

         1. collingreen · 1789603660 · focus · HN ↗

            Thanks for the reply!

            I'm not sure I agree that consciousness (or sentience if we're making that distinction) is worthless when considering the morality of exploiting something/someone. I do agree there are more angles than that but they seem on top of something's ability to perceive not instead/despite of it.

            Do you have some examples of other things that go into your own moral opinions about slavery?

            1. ozozozd · 1789625297 · focus · HN ↗

               So, slavery of a human would be ok if enough of us decide (no test, too high a bar) that this human is not conscious?

               Of course not. Therefore, lacking or possessing consciousness means very little. Perhaps mostly because we don’t have a test for it, but even so.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.