Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Surur t1_j9sloqf wrote

Reply to comment by petermobeter in Fading qualia thought experiment and what it implies by [deleted]

I personally believe any responsive system is conscious to a degree, reflected by their ability to sense, compute and respond. The more complex and rich that space is, the more conscious the system is.

For example a light switch is conscious of its state, on and off, while the tokyo subway station is not as conscious as a cell, as it has fewer inputs, fewer actions and fewer responses, but a lot more conscious than the light switch.

3

turnip_burrito t1_ja01qzg wrote

What defines the spatial borders of a responsive system?

1

Surur t1_ja0585j wrote

It that important? The spatial borders are the reach of your control.

1

turnip_burrito t1_ja0v8bq wrote

But for a human being, the spatial borders are smaller than our reach of control.

1

Surur t1_ja1iwc1 wrote

Is it really. When we control equipment we seem to adopt it's borders pretty well. We can slip into roles such as a person who controls a country pretty easily.

1

turnip_burrito t1_ja1mps9 wrote

No, what I mean is you only feel stuff directly touching your nervous system. That's what I mean by spatial borders.

The spatial borders of what a person experiences are their nervous system. Why? And furthermore, what is the equivalent for a light bulb or a piece of carpet?

1

Surur t1_ja1p6jo wrote

But that is not true. As I explained, we are easily able to expand our spatial borders to include machines we control.

And that question is not reasonable to ask for something which has only two states like a light switch or none like a carpet

1

turnip_burrito t1_ja1pqh4 wrote

That's not quite what I mean by spatial borders. I don't mean stuff you are causally connected to. I mean something different. I'm not going to go into any more detail though since it's a bit boring.

1