31–40 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think qualia are real in the general objective case, only in the subjective case. So nobody but 'you', whoever you are, can actually have them.
Ok let's rephrase then: can those mini-brains be a "you"?
This sounds like an episode of black mirror and seems immoral. If this actually does work and scale the results would be horrific. I don't really want brains with no rights to exist like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is a very valid concern, but how could this ever be assessed
If something cannot be assessed, then are we still accountable for the result? Or, do we simply discard the assessment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think qualia are real in the general objective case, only in the subjective case. So nobody but 'you', whoever you are, can actually have them.
Ok let's rephrase then: can those mini-brains be a "you"?
> Nagel famously asserts that “an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F
>programmers usually have to engage in a laborious process of manually adjusting the initial coefficients, or weights, that will be applied to each type of data point the network processes. Another challenge is to get the software to balance how much it should be trying to explore new solutions to a problem versus relying on solutions the network has already discovered that work well. “All these problems are complete…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is a very valid concern, but how could this ever be assessed
If something cannot be assessed, then are we still accountable for the result? Or, do we simply discard the assessment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think qualia are real in the general objective case, only in the subjective case. So nobody but 'you', whoever you are, can actually have them.
Meaning what? That doesn't bring any light to the question of whether these things are capable of suffering. As someone else said, this is a hard problem to reason about.
Pretty weird not to comment that they're replicating published work that trained mouse neurons on an electrode array to fly a plane in a flight simulator. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041022104658.h... It's about at the level where you could make a good attempt to replicate it as a hobby in your (albeit well stocked) garage.
> It's about at the level where you could make a good attempt to replicate it as a hobby in your (albeit well stocked) garage. Already being done: https://youtu.be/V2YDApNRK3g Doesn’t hurt to join forces with another ‘well stocked garage‘ featured earlier on HN: https://youtu.be/V2YDApNRK3g
And lol @ your Egg Benedict Donburi from Food Wars. I still haven't started season 2... check out Dotchi No Ryouri, it used to run on PBS but can be found on youtube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think qualia are real in the general objective case, only in the subjective case. So nobody but 'you', whoever you are, can actually have them.
Meaning what? That doesn't bring any light to the question of whether these things are capable of suffering. As someone else said, this is a hard problem to reason about.