but it most likely isn’t. “X computes Y” is a model in our head that is useful to predict what e.g. computers do, which breaks down if you zoom in (qualia appear in exactly what stage of a CPU pipeline?) or don’t assume the computer is perfect (how much rounding error is allowed to make the simulation a person and not random noise?)
(nevertheless, sure, the SAUS might not always exist… but above question still doesn’t seem to have any LW Approved Unique Solution (tm) either :))
I’m saying that although it isn’t ontologically fundamental, our utility function might still build on it (it “feels real enough”), so we might have problems if we try to extrapolate said function to full generality.
but it most likely isn’t. “X computes Y” is a model in our head that is useful to predict what e.g. computers do, which breaks down if you zoom in (qualia appear in exactly what stage of a CPU pipeline?) or don’t assume the computer is perfect (how much rounding error is allowed to make the simulation a person and not random noise?)
(nevertheless, sure, the SAUS might not always exist… but above question still doesn’t seem to have any LW Approved Unique Solution (tm) either :))
Are you saying you think qualia is ontologically fundamental or that it isn’t real or what?
I’m saying that although it isn’t ontologically fundamental, our utility function might still build on it (it “feels real enough”), so we might have problems if we try to extrapolate said function to full generality.
If something is not ontologically fundamental and doesn’t reduce to anything which is, then that thing isn’t real.