This was great and I really enjoyed reading it. It’s a pleasure to see one EA disagreeing with another with such eloquence, kindness and depth.
What I would say is that, even as someone doing a PhD in Philosophy, I found a bunch of this hard to follow (I don’t really do any work on consciousness), particularly objection 7 and when you introduced QRI’s own approach. I’ll entirely understand if you think making this more accessible is more trouble that it’s worth, I just thought I’d let you know.
Re: Objection 7, I think Aaronson’s point is that, if we actually take seriously the idea that a computer / Turing machine could generate consciousness simply by running the right computer code, we should be prepared for a lot of very, very weird implications.
Re: QRI’s approach, yeah I was trying to balance bringing up my work, vs not derailing the focus of the critique. I probably should have spent more words on that (I may go back and edit it).
This was great and I really enjoyed reading it. It’s a pleasure to see one EA disagreeing with another with such eloquence, kindness and depth.
What I would say is that, even as someone doing a PhD in Philosophy, I found a bunch of this hard to follow (I don’t really do any work on consciousness), particularly objection 7 and when you introduced QRI’s own approach. I’ll entirely understand if you think making this more accessible is more trouble that it’s worth, I just thought I’d let you know.
Thanks Michael!
Re: Objection 7, I think Aaronson’s point is that, if we actually take seriously the idea that a computer / Turing machine could generate consciousness simply by running the right computer code, we should be prepared for a lot of very, very weird implications.
Re: QRI’s approach, yeah I was trying to balance bringing up my work, vs not derailing the focus of the critique. I probably should have spent more words on that (I may go back and edit it).