azzaman333
meh
Am I allowed to decided there should be no afterlife?
What about the bad people?
If God put you in charge of creating all the afterlives and determining who goes into what afterlife, how would you do it?
I'm not sure how well that would work. What if someone thought that he was a bad person in life and was going to go to Hell, but it turns out he was actually a good person? Would that person go to Hell like he thought, or would he go to Heaven because of how he really was?I'd let everybody have the kind of afterlife they thought they were going to have when they died.
If you thought there'd be nothing, you'd get nothing, if you expected to be reincarnated, you would etc.
I might have a review board for the really obnoxious ones though.
Sure, but why would you?Am I allowed to decided there should be no afterlife?
Why would you do that, Mathilda?I'd let everybody have the kind of afterlife they thought they were going to have when they died.
If you thought there'd be nothing, you'd get nothing, if you expected to be reincarnated, you would etc.
I might have a review board for the really obnoxious ones though.
I don't think the specifics matter to much, it's just some uber-powerful being that endows you with this ability.Who is God? I don't understand.
You aren't God, you just get to make this decision for God (maybe as a part of God).If I was God, people wouldn't have enough time to die
Consciousness is basically the ability to recognize oneself as an individual. Now we can go on and debate a more precise and less ambiguous definition of the term, something the scientific community has not agreed upon so far. But it surely would not lead us to "the ability to learn".Consciousness is just a popular psychology term for learning. The better an organism is at learning new things, the more likely it is to be considered conscious. I suppose this is because the act of learning implies uniqueness; if your behavior is learned during life rather than biologically predetermined, then it will vary from individual to individual, creating unique "person"alities. Build a computer capable of learning, and matching or exceeding the intelligence of any extant organism will simply be a matter of cramming as much processing power into the computer's "brain" as possible.
If something acts conscious, then for all practical purposes, it is conscious. Philosophical zombies really only come into play if you believe in souls, which some creatures possess but others do not. In which case, though, talk of neurons is pointless since they're just a test of faith, like dinosaur bones or radiation.
Yes and I countered that with the argument that in the end to simulate a fully fleshed out human being is no different than say a flight simulator. JustWhile I agree that you could have a simulation behave exactly like a human, I'm not certain of is that you could construct such that it's unconscious.
To clarify I'll add that as I see it consciousness is just a way nature turned out to organize our actions, probably a product of the limited ways of nature and its need for efficiency. In a simulation, which can afford to be resource-drawing and is not limited by biological evolution, you can skip that and limit yourself to factors resulting in action. Without the mumbo-jumbo of consciousness which will only make your heart heavymore complexity, more factors, longer equations. If those would result in consciousness, so should our programs nowadays, because complexity alone can't be a measure of consciousness, but that is the only significant difference.
One thing I should point out here is that what we really should be discussing is the worthiness of moral protection that we deem humans to have. Consciousness probably plays a role here, but what we're really after is moral worthiness.Consciousness is basically the ability to recognize oneself as an individual. Now we can go on and debate a more precise and less ambiguous definition of the term, something the scientific community has not agreed upon so far. But it surely would not lead us to "the ability to learn".
We already have programs which can "learn", albeit in yet quit limited ways. Do you consider those programs conscious?
So a nice flight simulator even one that works perfectly, will not, in an important sense produce flight. However, I'm not so sure that's the same for beings of moral worth.Yes and I countered that with the argument that in the end to simulate a fully fleshed out human being is no different than say a flight simulator.
I'm not sure you can do that without implementing some sort of thinking mechanism inside. How can you model what I will do next, without modelling how I will think next? My thoughts and actions are intimately entwined, and I'm not sure one can simply disentangle the two.Just
To clarify I'll add that as I see it consciousness is just a way nature turned out to organize our actions, probably a product of the limited ways of nature and its need for efficiency. In a simulation, which can afford to be resource-drawing and is not limited by biological evolution, you can skip that and limit yourself to factors resulting in action. Without the mumbo-jumbo of consciousness which will only make your heart heavy