RE: On naturalism and consciousness
September 14, 2014 at 1:37 pm
(This post was last modified: September 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
"Simulating life" in a computer is actually addressing our usage of the word life in a non technical manner, ie "x has a life". It doesn't address the technical usage of the word life, as in "x is alive" (so there's no need to wonder whether or not "life" has been created unless it fits the technical definition for the term - as we already use the non-technical turn of phrase for inanimate objects without any actual problem - IE, the "the life of a car". Nothing to accept or reject in the hypothetical, really)
But, as to the philosophical objection, of course we can locate "simulated life" -in the real world-. Simply point to the circuitry. Those are the "bits of matter" involved. If we can't assign them real needs, emotion, and self awareness- we can't assign any of it to ourselves either simply by pointing to our "bits of matter". Or, to put it another way, if we choose to dismiss their hypothetical experience on these grounds we dismiss our own. Which is fine, mind you. The idea of no mind, no self - just the appearance of these things also has advocates in neuroscience. Personally, I'd call it a difference that made no difference - but that's only because the hypothetical explicitly involves a scenario in which the observed effect (mind in both cases) is identical or that the simulation is complete or indistinguishable from the "real deal".
"Cyberlife" would be just as material as anything else. Sometimes people forget that the functions of a computer are not airy things floating around in virtual space but physical tumblers, structures that can be seen and held in your hand -doing work. It's the work of those physical objects that implements function (whatever they may be - but in this case, a "simulation" of having a life, or a mind).
But, as to the philosophical objection, of course we can locate "simulated life" -in the real world-. Simply point to the circuitry. Those are the "bits of matter" involved. If we can't assign them real needs, emotion, and self awareness- we can't assign any of it to ourselves either simply by pointing to our "bits of matter". Or, to put it another way, if we choose to dismiss their hypothetical experience on these grounds we dismiss our own. Which is fine, mind you. The idea of no mind, no self - just the appearance of these things also has advocates in neuroscience. Personally, I'd call it a difference that made no difference - but that's only because the hypothetical explicitly involves a scenario in which the observed effect (mind in both cases) is identical or that the simulation is complete or indistinguishable from the "real deal".
"Cyberlife" would be just as material as anything else. Sometimes people forget that the functions of a computer are not airy things floating around in virtual space but physical tumblers, structures that can be seen and held in your hand -doing work. It's the work of those physical objects that implements function (whatever they may be - but in this case, a "simulation" of having a life, or a mind).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
