You may be mistreating your computer even if it doesn’t develop phenomenal consciousness.
I realize you are not endorsing this yourself, but regardless, it’s a classic example of “rationalists” following ideas to their ultimate conclusion without sanity-checking them or applying Chesterton’s fence.
Indeed, just as you do, I very much reject that statement, which are only the words I used to very bluntly put what the paper authors really imply.
Then, I find your claim slightly too strong. I would not want to claim to know for sure the authors have not tried to sanity-check their conclusions, and I’m not 100% sure they have not thought quite deeply about the consciousness concept and its origins (despite my puzzlement about their conclusions), so I wouldn’t have dared to state it’s a classical Chesterton’s fence trespassing. That said, indeed, I find the incompatibility between their claims and how I understand consciousness quite so fundamental that I guess you’re quite spot on (assuming I actually don’t myself fully misinterpret your point).
It’s a Chesterton’s Fence trespassing because every single other person would say that you can’t mistreat a computer. If you don’t understand why everyone thinks this way, beyond just “well, they’re ignorant”, you shouldn’t be treating the opposite seriously.
I’m not sure what you think Chesterton’s fence is, but I’ve never heard it used straightfowardly as a plea to do what everybody else is doing for Modest Epistemology reasons.
I understand your concern, about the authors deviating from a consensus without good reasons. However, from the authors’ perspective, they probably believe that they have compelling arguments to support their view, and therefore think they’re rejecting the consensus for valid reasons. In this case, just pointing to Chesterton’s fence isn’t going to resolve the disagreement.
Since so much around consciousness is highly debated and complex (or as some might hold simple and trivial but difficult to see for the others), departing from the consensus isn’t automatically a mistake, which I think is the same as or close to what @lc points out.
I realize you are not endorsing this yourself, but regardless, it’s a classic example of “rationalists” following ideas to their ultimate conclusion without sanity-checking them or applying Chesterton’s fence.
Indeed, just as you do, I very much reject that statement, which are only the words I used to very bluntly put what the paper authors really imply.
Then, I find your claim slightly too strong. I would not want to claim to know for sure the authors have not tried to sanity-check their conclusions, and I’m not 100% sure they have not thought quite deeply about the consciousness concept and its origins (despite my puzzlement about their conclusions), so I wouldn’t have dared to state it’s a classical Chesterton’s fence trespassing. That said, indeed, I find the incompatibility between their claims and how I understand consciousness quite so fundamental that I guess you’re quite spot on (assuming I actually don’t myself fully misinterpret your point).
It’s a Chesterton’s Fence trespassing because every single other person would say that you can’t mistreat a computer. If you don’t understand why everyone thinks this way, beyond just “well, they’re ignorant”, you shouldn’t be treating the opposite seriously.
I’m not sure what you think Chesterton’s fence is, but I’ve never heard it used straightfowardly as a plea to do what everybody else is doing for Modest Epistemology reasons.
Everyone is ignorant about consciousness and ethics, even the experts.
I understand your concern, about the authors deviating from a consensus without good reasons. However, from the authors’ perspective, they probably believe that they have compelling arguments to support their view, and therefore think they’re rejecting the consensus for valid reasons. In this case, just pointing to Chesterton’s fence isn’t going to resolve the disagreement.
Since so much around consciousness is highly debated and complex (or as some might hold simple and trivial but difficult to see for the others), departing from the consensus isn’t automatically a mistake, which I think is the same as or close to what @lc points out.