At what point to you would it move from simulation to essentially the same configuration just in a different container?
Never.
Intelligence is substrate independent, and does not depend on consciousness or phenomenology. Phenomenology is probably substrate dependent, though. Meaning, the meatbag wrapped around our skeletal system really does matter. Phenomenology is also what makes us feel anything at all.
You can make all the intelligence you want, bootstrapping it off our neural architecture. You’re still doing us a disservice if you call it human. It’s more like a new species, with much more intelligence and virtually no phenomenological experience.
But calling it a new species is also arguable, because whether or not it would be “alive” is arguable. I’d just call it a neat toy.
I don’t understand why you think it’d be out of the question for it to have phenomoligcal experiences, why couldn’t we build a way for it to smell if it has the same pathways to be able to interpret that? How would that be meaningfully different?
Think about hearing aides or other similar “enhancements” wherein were simply adjusting the input in a way and the brain is still able to process it.
I would agree it wouldn’t be the same as a literal human, thinking like Fallout 4 style synths, I consider them people (in universe of course lol) even if they’re not literally humans.
At what point to you would it move from simulation to essentially the same configuration just in a different container?
I still think you’re conflating the aspect of life we experience as somehow separate from the procedure our brain takes to present that to you.
Never.
Intelligence is substrate independent, and does not depend on consciousness or phenomenology. Phenomenology is probably substrate dependent, though. Meaning, the meatbag wrapped around our skeletal system really does matter. Phenomenology is also what makes us feel anything at all.
You can make all the intelligence you want, bootstrapping it off our neural architecture. You’re still doing us a disservice if you call it human. It’s more like a new species, with much more intelligence and virtually no phenomenological experience.
But calling it a new species is also arguable, because whether or not it would be “alive” is arguable. I’d just call it a neat toy.
I don’t understand why you think it’d be out of the question for it to have phenomoligcal experiences, why couldn’t we build a way for it to smell if it has the same pathways to be able to interpret that? How would that be meaningfully different?
Think about hearing aides or other similar “enhancements” wherein were simply adjusting the input in a way and the brain is still able to process it.
I would agree it wouldn’t be the same as a literal human, thinking like Fallout 4 style synths, I consider them people (in universe of course lol) even if they’re not literally humans.