I'm very confident that mental events supervene onto physical events, and therefore whatever it is that causes us to report consciousness will be retained by any sufficiently accurate simulation
Yes -- but that's confidence not science. That's what I'm talking about when I say there's a good reason there's no expert on this. You can be as confident as you like but then it could well be that some extra particle, effect or physical property which cannot be simulated appears.
Incidentally, what gives you such confidence? It's a weird thing to be quite so confident about. I'm completely open minded either way. Do you take the real hardline "Book of einstein's brain" approach?
Either way, the problems are highly interrelated -- because we don't know at all (excluding the "very confident") what properties of a brain are necessary for consciousness we certainly cannot answer questions about how consciousness can be reconstructed.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-02-12 12:10 pm (UTC)I'm very confident that mental events supervene onto physical events, and therefore whatever it is that causes us to report consciousness will be retained by any sufficiently accurate simulation
Yes -- but that's confidence not science. That's what I'm talking about when I say there's a good reason there's no expert on this. You can be as confident as you like but then it could well be that some extra particle, effect or physical property which cannot be simulated appears.
Incidentally, what gives you such confidence? It's a weird thing to be quite so confident about. I'm completely open minded either way. Do you take the real hardline "Book of einstein's brain" approach?
Either way, the problems are highly interrelated -- because we don't know at all (excluding the "very confident") what properties of a brain are necessary for consciousness we certainly cannot answer questions about how consciousness can be reconstructed.