[naasking]

> There's absolutely no reason to believe it experiences any of the qualia experienced by the people immersed in the VR.

Firstly, NPCs tautologically don't experience the same qualia, but that doesn't mean they don't experience qualia of their own. Like I said, they respond to their environment, which means they have senses of a sort.

> It just behaves as if it does [produce consciousness], like the people on your television screen.

How do you know that? You're merely asserting p-zombies exist, you're not proving it.

[DonaldFisk]

If you were talking about humanoid robots in the physical world, you'd have a point, but in a VR, NPCs exist in much the same way images of people exist on your TV screen. They're not really there. They also exist in the form of data on the computer running the VR, but data can't be conscious either, as it's entirely passive, like words in a book the computer can read from and write to.

[naasking]

> They're not really there.

In what way can you prove you are "really there" in a way that a simulated entity is not? Fundamentally, your matter could very well be a mathematical construct -- see the Mathematical Universe hypothesis, for instance.

> They also exist in the form of data on the computer running the VR, but data can't be conscious either, as it's entirely passive, like words in a book the computer can read from and write to.

Except they're not, because the NPCs respond intelligently to you and their environment, both of which are always changing, so they aren't anything like passive, unchanging data. No one is claiming that data that isn't changing is conscious, but NPCs don't consist of unchanging data. So they could very well be conscious, and you haven't presented an argument why such intelligent responses would not require consciousness, you've merely been asserting it.

And it's not like you don't state that consciousness can't be a computation, because you've said that the game system as a whole might be conscious. So if we agree to assume for the sake of argument that consciousness is a computation, then it will be a particular kind of computation with a certain property, like how sorting algorithms sort their input.

Which means any algorithm that has this property produces consciousness. Furthermore, personality differences and sensory input from their environment would just be parameters to such an algorithm. And if game AI needs this consciousness property to make believably intelligent characters, which is what we've been discussing, then each of the NPCs will run this algorithm with their own personality and environment configurations, and each of them will be conscious.

The best I can infer about your argument is that these computations don't have access to "real" senses, but this point is entirely irrelevant. All AI senses will reduce to a set of numbers anyway, which means even if the "sensory" inputs we hook them up to are entirely simulated, this makes no difference to the consciousness algorithm. Consciousness would be a logical property, so you can't simultaneously accept that the game system could have consciousness, but the individual NPCs would not.

[DonaldFisk]

> Fundamentally, your matter could very well be a mathematical construct.

My consciousness, however, is "really there". It's one of the few things anyone can be sure of.

> And it's not like you don't state that consciousness can't be a computation, because you've said that the game system as a whole might be conscious.

No. I said that the computer controlling the VR could be conscious of something. I should have been more specific about which parts. I meant the CPUs and the GPUs, certainly not the software. Their role in the whole system is the same as the man in the Chinese room. We have his word that he doesn't understand Chinese, but he does experience something. The role of the software is that of the book in the room, with a part of the book where the man can write down intermediate stages in his calculation. Or are you saying that the book is somehow conscious of understanding Chinese simply because there's space in it where the man takes notes?

[naasking]

> My consciousness, however, is "really there".

You didn't answer the question. You can be sure your consciousness exists, and you grant existence to other conscious people no doubt, but you seem certain that AI consciousness is not in a game of AI NPCs that are just as intelligent as humans, yet provide no justification for that.

> Or are you saying that the book is somehow conscious of understanding Chinese simply because there's space in it where the man takes notes?

I'm saying that your attempt to define a "locus" where consciousness resides is futile. A CPU is not a person, even though a person can act like a CPU.

You're effectively asking which line in a sorting algorithm actually does the sorting. All of it does the sorting, and all of the program+scratch memory that produces intelligent behaviour, would produce consciousness as well. The CPU is completely incidental. If you compile your program for a completely different architecture, or take a snapshot and restore it on another computer, the consciousness moves with the program, it does not stay with the CPU on which it was originally running.

[DonaldFisk]

I'll try again. I think that consciousness only exists in "ground reality", so if the universe is a simulation, consciousness can only enter it from ground reality. I think ground reality exists - it can't be "simulations all the way down".

I'm assuming that we're in ground reality, but capable of developing realistic virtual realities.

I'm not sure what can give rise to consciousness. I think it most likely that it's related to the ability to collapse quantum states, or in Everett's interpretation, decide which universe to be in.

In that case, since the NPCs are unable to collapse quantum states, they cannot have consciousness although they behave exactly like someone who can.

Alternatively, it might require information processing by real, physical hardware. In that case, CPUs and GPUs can be conscious as well as people, insects, and even thermostats. However, as CPUs and GPUs are processing completely different kinds of information from people, I'd expect them to have completely different qualia.

What you appear to be saying is that NPCs aren't merely conscious but have qualia at least as similar to me as other people have, by virtue of them appearing to behave similarly to people.

And I am saying that as they don't really process any information - they're just instructions and data being processed by computer hardware, that they can't be conscious any more than the characters in a book can be conscious whenever anyone reads the book.

I probably haven't convinced you of anything, but I hope at least I've made my position clear.