RE: https://infosec.exchange/@paco/116504499864795870
Richard Dawkins, looking at a high-definition large-screen TV:
"If this is not a window, what more could it possibly take to convince you it is a window?"
Post
Replies:
13
@rysiek he sounds like he's into some religious cult or something
To him, the brain is just an electro-chemical computer. If that can experience qualia then I guess he thinks a resonating pile of silicon can, too
@mdc he would be making the exact same statement in 1950s and 1960s, based on even more simplistic and mechanistic understanding of how human brain works combined with being distracted by fast calculations or ELIZA.
I don't know how much Dawkins knows about brains, but a lot of people who make these kinds of statements, especially if they mention "circuitry", "electrical signals", etc, usually completely ignore the fact that brains stew in a complex solution of hormones and other biochemistry.
Answer: The view would change as I move to the left and right.
Objection: But the things in the view are too far away!
Answer: Things become visible and disappear along the left and right edges. Or not.
Example of such a "window," which is really just a television screen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcSjxdQZCss
Sigh, I wrote about exactly that five years ago, almost to the day:
https://tecc.media/claim-gpt3-is-conscious/
@rysiek The Chinese room argument is fairly unconvincing though. It would not be the person mindlessly following a rule book who can speak Chinese, but the system consisting of the rule book (software) and the processor (person in the room). Nobody would argue that a CPU / GPU is conscious either, but this does not logically exclude a computer with suitable software from being conscious. (no, I do not believe modern Chat bots are conscious)
@uecker yeah, the Chinese room bit is a bit of a weak spot in that short piece of mine.
@rysiek It's hilarious how you can gauge how out-of-touch someone is by how late they are to being laughably wrong.
Also, come on, his whole shtick was pointing out that being "convinced" about something is not the same as that something being true.
Funny how suddenly "convinced" is enough of a proof.
@rysiek all I'm getting this is that Dawkins is a shill for AI. Which perfectly tracks with his integrity.
