2 - That’s a question about the meanings of words. I don’t object to those constraints on the meanings of those words, though I don’t feel strongly about them.
3 - If “qualia” is meaningful (see 1), then no.
4 - N/A
5 - Ugh. “Any required degree” is damningly vague. Labeling confidence levels as follows:
C1 that it’s in-principle-possible to build as good a simulation of a particular human as any other human is.
C2 that it’s ipp to build a good enough simulation of a human that no currently existing test could reliably tell it apart from the original.
C3 that it’s ipp to build one that could pass an “interview test” (a la Turing) with the most knowledgeable currently available judges.
...I’d say C1 > C2 > C3 > 99%, though C2 would require also implementing the computer in neurons in a cloned body.
5a—Depends on the required level of accuracy: ~0% for a stone statue, for example. For any of the above examples, I’d expect it to do so as much as the original does.
5b—Not in the sense you mean.
6 - I am not sure that question makes sense. If it does, accurate priors are beyond me. For lack of anything better, I go with a universal prior of 50%.
7 - Mostly that’s a question about definitions… if it doesn’t explain consciousness, is it really a Theory of Everything? But given what I think you mean by ToE: 99+%.
8 - Question about definitions. I’m willing to constrain my definition of “real” that way, for the sake of discussion.
9 - I have no idea and am not convinced the questions make sense, x4.
10 - x5.
11 - Not entirely, though it is a regular student at a nonsensei-run dojo.
Oh, all right. I’m bored and suggestible.
1 - Both potentially meaningful
2 - That’s a question about the meanings of words. I don’t object to those constraints on the meanings of those words, though I don’t feel strongly about them.
3 - If “qualia” is meaningful (see 1), then no.
4 - N/A
5 - Ugh. “Any required degree” is damningly vague. Labeling confidence levels as follows:
C1 that it’s in-principle-possible to build as good a simulation of a particular human as any other human is.
C2 that it’s ipp to build a good enough simulation of a human that no currently existing test could reliably tell it apart from the original.
C3 that it’s ipp to build one that could pass an “interview test” (a la Turing) with the most knowledgeable currently available judges.
...I’d say C1 > C2 > C3 > 99%, though C2 would require also implementing the computer in neurons in a cloned body.
5a—Depends on the required level of accuracy: ~0% for a stone statue, for example. For any of the above examples, I’d expect it to do so as much as the original does.
5b—Not in the sense you mean.
6 - I am not sure that question makes sense. If it does, accurate priors are beyond me. For lack of anything better, I go with a universal prior of 50%.
7 - Mostly that’s a question about definitions… if it doesn’t explain consciousness, is it really a Theory of Everything? But given what I think you mean by ToE: 99+%.
8 - Question about definitions. I’m willing to constrain my definition of “real” that way, for the sake of discussion.
9 - I have no idea and am not convinced the questions make sense, x4.
10 - x5.
11 - Not entirely, though it is a regular student at a nonsensei-run dojo.