On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 11:48, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>An RNG would be a bad design choice because it would be extremely > unreliable. However, as a thought experiment, it could work. If the visual > cortex were removed and replaced with an RNG which for five minutes > replicated the interactions with the remaining brain, the subject would > behave as if they had normal vision and report that they had normal vision, > then after five minutes behave as if they were blind and report that they > were blind. It is perhaps contrary to intuition that the subject would > really have visual experiences in that five minute period, but I don't > think there is any other plausible explanation. > > I think they would be a visual zombie in that five minute period, though > as described they would not be able to report any difference. > > I think if one's entire brain were replaced by an RNG, they would be a > total zombie who would fool us into thinking they were conscious and we > would not notice a difference. So by extension a brain partially replaced > by an RNG would be a partial zombie that fooled the other parts of the > brain into thinking nothing was amiss. > I think the concept of a partial zombie makes consciousness nonsensical. How would I know that I am not a visual zombie now, or a visual zombie every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday? What is the advantage of having "real" visual experiences if they make no objective difference and no subjective difference either? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXogfdS6mi9%3Df60U5QNcbnLaEYyp6Honrt-u8CcNWpsVw%40mail.gmail.com.
