On Thu, 25 May 2023 at 11:48, Jason Resch <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypXogfdS6mi9%3Df60U5QNcbnLaEYyp6Honrt-u8CcNWpsVw%40mail.gmail.com.
