On 07 Sep 2011, at 20:39, meekerdb wrote:

On 9/7/2011 7:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what is the threshold at which a reconstituted person feels
anything at all?

It does not exist. The person always feel something. I guess you ask what is the threshold for such machine to manifest genuinely the phenomenon of feeling something? Here comp gives a clear answer: we cannot have such criterion. We can have plausibility criteria, and that is what we use in the everyday life. But such everyday-life suggests we will always meet difficulties to decide if some entity is conscious or not. In case of lower animals, plants, and tomorrow's machines, some people will argue that they don't feel, like some people argues that some higher animals or even some humans does not feel, or not sufficiently to be considered as a genuine person (like with some form of coma).

Thus the "hard problem" will be bypassed and "being conscious" will be regarded as a certain kind of behavior which is within the purview of artificial intelligence engineering.

Not at all. Why would the impossibility of a 3-threshold (to decide if something is conscious) imply that we have to bypass the hard problem? On the contrary, such a theoretical impossibility is one step toward the solution. We will just *have to* bypass the threshold criteria, and keep the theory which explains why we have to bypass the criteria. That might just be a nucance from the point of view of engineering, but is a key point for the fundamental inquiry.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to