Hacker News Reader

Well, we can’t even clearly define consciousness, so who’s to say complex large-input statistical computation isn’t it?

I have no idea. Anyone claiming to is hubristic.

“We can’t clearly define it so we should accept just about any definition of it” is certainly a position to take.

The burden of proof exists, it’s not hubristic to require it.

Yeah, on both parties. No one can prove that it is or is not large-input statistical analysis. Maybe you are suggesting that the burden is more on proving it IS. Even if that’s your case, and even if you’re right, that does not mean we can safely conclude it is not. It means we don’t know, and maybe one side of the argument is more likely… maybe.

Again, hubris to have an unshakeable firm belief one way or the other. None of us are omnipotent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com