I can rule out that the robot is conscious, because the word “conscious” has very little meaning. It’s a label of an artificial category. You can redefine “conscious” to include or exclude the robot, but that doesn’t change reality in any way. The robot is exactly as “conscious” as you are “roboticious”. You can either ask questions about brain activity and function, or you can ask no questions at all.
I can rule out that the robot is conscious, because the word “conscious” has very little meaning.
To whom? To most people, it indicates having a first person perspective, which is something rather general. It seems to mean little to you because of your gerrymnadered definition of meaning.Going only be external signs, consciousness might just be some unimportant behavioural quirks.
You can redefine “conscious” to include or exclude the robot, but that doesn’t change reality in any way.
The point is not to make it vacuously true that robots are conscious. The point is to use a definition of consciousness that includes it’s central feature: subjectivity.
You can either ask questions about brain activity and function, or you can ask no questions at all.
Says who? I can ask and answer subjective questions of myself, like how do I feel, what can I remember, how much do I enjoy a taste. The fact that having consiousness fgives you that kind of access is central.
What does “not having a first person perspective” look like?
gerrymnadered definition of meaning
I find my definition of meaning (of statements) very natural. Do you want to offer a better one?
subjectivity
I think you use that word as equivalent to consciousness, not as a property that consciousness has.
I can ask and answer subjective questions of myself, like how do I feel, what can I remember, how much do I enjoy a taste.
All of these things have perfectly good physical representations. All of them can be done by a fairly simple bot. I don’t think that’s what you mean by consciousness.
I can rule out that the robot is conscious, because the word “conscious” has very little meaning. It’s a label of an artificial category. You can redefine “conscious” to include or exclude the robot, but that doesn’t change reality in any way. The robot is exactly as “conscious” as you are “roboticious”. You can either ask questions about brain activity and function, or you can ask no questions at all.
There’s nothing artificial about direct experience.
To whom? To most people, it indicates having a first person perspective, which is something rather general. It seems to mean little to you because of your gerrymnadered definition of meaning.Going only be external signs, consciousness might just be some unimportant behavioural quirks.
The point is not to make it vacuously true that robots are conscious. The point is to use a definition of consciousness that includes it’s central feature: subjectivity.
Says who? I can ask and answer subjective questions of myself, like how do I feel, what can I remember, how much do I enjoy a taste. The fact that having consiousness fgives you that kind of access is central.
What does “not having a first person perspective” look like?
I find my definition of meaning (of statements) very natural. Do you want to offer a better one?
I think you use that word as equivalent to consciousness, not as a property that consciousness has.
All of these things have perfectly good physical representations. All of them can be done by a fairly simple bot. I don’t think that’s what you mean by consciousness.
Not if “perfectly good” means “known”.
It’s ok, it doesn’t. Why do people keep bringing up current knowledge?
Because we are trying to communicate now, but your semantic scheme requires knowledge that is only available in the future , if at all.