I think the relevance of the GAZP was supposed to be reasoning along the lines of: 1) Either (A1) consciousness is solely the result of brain-states being computed, or (A2) it involves some kind of epiphenomenal property. 2) The GAZP precludes epiphenomenal properties being responsible for consciousness. 3) Therefore A1.
The difficulty with this reasoning, of course, is that there’s a huge excluded middle between A1 and A2.
C, D, and E are bad only because they include B
For my own part I would not quite agree with this, though it’s close. I would agree that if a scenario includes (B,C,D,E) the vast bulk of the badness in that scenario is on account of B.
There might be some badness that follows from (C,D,E) alone… I certainly have a strong intuitive aversion to them, and while I suspect that that preference would not be stable under reflection I’m not strongly confident of that.
I think the relevance of the GAZP was supposed to be reasoning along the lines of:
1) Either (A1) consciousness is solely the result of brain-states being computed, or (A2) it involves some kind of epiphenomenal property.
2) The GAZP precludes epiphenomenal properties being responsible for consciousness.
3) Therefore A1.
The difficulty with this reasoning, of course, is that there’s a huge excluded middle between A1 and A2.
For my own part I would not quite agree with this, though it’s close.
I would agree that if a scenario includes (B,C,D,E) the vast bulk of the badness in that scenario is on account of B.
There might be some badness that follows from (C,D,E) alone… I certainly have a strong intuitive aversion to them, and while I suspect that that preference would not be stable under reflection I’m not strongly confident of that.