Comment by aebtebeten | Hacker News Reader

Comment by aebtebeten | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> for all you know I might be a P-zombie that's just parroting phrases it once read

Right, but as long as the phrases you parrot appear to continue a conversation that I usefully model as produced by (another?) consciousness, I pragmatically (see Peirce) don't care what the actual mechanism that produced them may be. (an analogy: when using computers we almost always care that a protocol is followed, often care that a specific function is computed, sometimes care about which algorithm computes it, and almost never care about the exact implementation) If you were to be a giant lookup table or a Searlean room instead of a conscious being, well, that's on you.

> what if I am a P-zombie dreaming "I" am conscious? — not Zhuangzi

see also https://xkcd.com/810/

It depends on your goal. If all you care about is getting stuff done? I'd agree with your position.

But when that's all I care about, I don't ask that question. To me, the question of "consciousness" matters in, and only in, scenarios where the inner world matters, which is why I use that for my definition of "consciousness":

1. If I uploaded my brain, would that be a fork of my consciousness that would survive the death of my physical body? Tautologically only if it's "conscious".

2. Are the AI we make and use suffering a fate worse than the actual slaves in the Caribbean who invented the term "zombie" out of a fear that their masters would force them to keep working after death? Only if they're "conscious", and even then possibly not (suffering is an extra question to be asked once consciousness is determined).

I'd kinda like to get my brain uploaded, but there's no point if it's not a continuation of my consciousness.

I'd like to use a super-smart AI to solve my problems, but not if doing so involves creating minds that exist only for a few seconds before being destroyed.

Thinking about this a little, it's not clear to me that AI would have a problem with death. We seem unnecessarily asymmetric, caring a lot about our ego not existing in the future when we hardly consider that it already didn't exist for a very long time in the past, but that's probably evolutionary due to the embodiment?

— "Make me one with everything," said the monk to the hot dog vendor

(Vendor gives hot dog to monk, monk pays)

— "..." waits the monk

— "How much was that hot dog, anyway? I gave you a 20" says the monk

— "Change," replies the vendor, "is an illusion."

> Thinking about this a little, it's not clear to me that AI would have a problem with death. We seem unnecessarily asymmetric, caring a lot about our ego not existing in the future when we hardly consider that it already didn't exist for a very long time in the past, but that's probably evolutionary due to the embodiment?

Sure, but that same chasm of difference which means we can't guess at that (despite it being so innate to many of us), means we could very well accidentally cause suffering or induce rage even when we think we're being nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokito_(gorilla)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com