[coldtea]

>Tarkovsky was an Orthodox Christian, but his ideas about the irreducibility of experience parallel Zen

Let's add that this is not by chance: the irreducibility of experience (especially divine experience) is a core motive of Orthodox Christianity as well (which also has a long tradition of mystics).

[dhdondldn]

The idea that experience is not irreducible is rare. Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements?

Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

[0xBABAD00C]

> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements?

I do. Considering consciousness, a property of animals on a planet in a star system, irreducible and more fundamental than, say, quarks and bosons, seems laughably wrong to me. On the same level of wrong as medieval "geocentric" world views. I have a hard time imagining how those accomplished physicists think this way..

[Barrin92]

Reminds me of James Jeans, another idealist physicist, which I feel like is becoming slightly more popular again of a view.

"The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter...we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter."

[nineteen999]

> Who thinks they can analyse consciousness into more fundamental elements?

About half of HN, who think that we will be able to manufacture some form of AGI that should have the right to be treated as the equal of humans.

[whatshisface]

A person who thinks that animals are nothing more than colonies of abnormally cooperative eukaryotes may still dislike animal cruelty on the basis that anyone who is capable of it would be capable of cruelty to humans, or that practicing one prepares you for the other. I imagine the same argument could be made to apply to robots, even if you wanted to sidestep the machine consciousness question.

P.S. this argument is a very familiar one if you recognize it - if you have ever heard the advice not to date anyone who's mean to waiters, that's the same idea - that whatever causes cruelty, causes it against all targets.

[nineteen999]

I feel like your comment is entirely gibberish. In the real world, nobody mistakes autism for intelligence.

[nefitty]

I pre-commit to supporting AI and automaton rights. I am an ethical vegetarian.

[nineteen999]

I consider people with that mindset to be an enemy of humanity. And I love animals. Some of them are cute, and some of them are delicious.

[nefitty]

That's a personal failure of empathy. Any reasoning beyond need is a rationalization. Humans can survive without killing animals.

Nice try though.

[nineteen999]

Billions of people all around the planet both love some animals, and eat others. They are the majority and your view is in the minority. Do you consider all of them to have a personal failure in this regard too? Nice attempt to try and single someone out personally though.