kaffeemitsahne

Because I vouched for it first (requires some amount of karma I think).

"There’s a lot more to the evolution, enough for a book on the subject, but if you had to create a list of what kinds of technology and methodology went into the Looking Glass (since they do not list it), it might look like this:"

Pure speculation.

Most HN threads are not that big, I think it'd do just fine with (reverse?) chronological ordering.

>Every experiment in UBI says otherwise.

Has even one of these been a permanent (for the recipients) experiment?

Ah, but can you power all of those from a battery pack and keep them on your lap on the train after taking them out of your small backpack? And all at the same time!

Last I heard, integrated information theory is _not_ neutral w.r.t. substrate, i.e. to compute the consciousness of a human being simulated on a computer chip, Tononi wants us to apply the IIT calculations to the computer chip.

Well, sure, there is something it is like to be that computer, but it is only accessible to the computer, which does not pay a lot of attention to what it's like to be itself generally. When you ask me what it's like I can try to imagine becoming the computer, but in the process I would cease to exist, so for me there is only the objective computer seen from the outside.

The only reason "what it's like" seems to make sense with other humans is because we evolved this nifty faculty of empathy. But if I examine more closely what it's like to be you, I also find that at the point I'm you, and thus have subjective access to your consciousness, I'm not me anymore.

So, it seems that when looking more closely exactly the same problem occurs when asking what it's like to be a computer, or a human, therefore the "what it's like" question is not a valid argument to ascribe consciousness to one but not the other.