At long last, it is done! Consciousness Actually Explained: EC Theory lesswrong.com/posts/KbRnXMoy… No more mystery, no more confusion; the solution of all relevant problems/questions regarding consciousness that have ever been raised. Help me spread the good news.
  16
  3
  1
  31
Eliezer’s argument against p-zombies is perfectly circular, I can’t really take someone seriously if they don’t notice that
  1
 
 
 
Care to elaborate? In re-skimming his post I’m not seeing it. All I really want to use from that post is anti-epiphenomenalism; there is some in-universe, physically causal reason we are talking about consciousness.
  1
 
 
 
Ok maybe not circular but full of bad assumptions l 1. (unprovable) consciousness is a software program 2. the parts of the program we can measure have obvious utility 3. the parts we can’t measure are exactly like the parts that we can (dubious) 1/2
  1
 
 
  2
4. Therefore the unmeasurable parts of the program have non-obvious utility 5. Therefore anything that looks like it’s running the program is running the whole program Try applying this logic to a full stack web application and tell me how it goes
  1
 
 
  2
Perhaps linking to his post was a tactical mistake – I don’t want to defend eliezer’s entire post/frame. What objections do you have to the one thing I said I wanted to use/extract from the post? Your other points are either rendered irrelevant or answered in my document.
  1
 
 
  1
I got as far as “the software has the property of existing” — you can’t just nakedly assert that consciousness is software
  1
 
 
  1
It’s not a naked assertion; I spend a good chunk of the document justifying it. If you disagree with my reasoning, thats fine/different. And if you’re justifiably spooked by giving software ontological status – I use it more as a referential convenience:
But if remaining within EC, you really don’t need to get fancy or deep with existence. There is an interpretation of the brain which recovers our content, which we would only really understand we had actually recovered if we are viewing the atoms/whatever through … (cont.)
  2
 
 
  1
Granted, some things have to first be stated/presented to then be subsequently supported – rather than beating around the bush till the very end – so some claims made earlier in the document get stronger further in.