[GMoromisato]

It starts by saying that a simulation of something is not the real thing. A simulation of a hurricane is not a hurricane. That's certainly true and even obvious.

Then they say that current AI is just a simulation of consciousness and therefore is not real consciousness. Moreover, it can never be real consciousness because it is just a simulation.

But that's a circular argument: they are defining AI as a simulation. But what if AI is not a simulation of consciousness but actual consciousness? They don't offer any argument for why that's impossible.

[ribosometronome]

>A simulation of a hurricane is not a hurricane

If we simulated a hurricane by somehow inducing a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms over warm tropical waters with wind speeds over 75+ mph, the difference could end up being fairly unimportant to those in the simulation's path.

Computer simulations of hurricanes obviously lack those important properties of what makes something a hurricane. I'm not so sure that the same would apply to something as abstract and difficult to define as consciousness.

[GMoromisato]

Agreed! The paper is not explicit about how to distinguish between a simulation and the real thing, and that's how it gets into trouble.

With consciousness, the extra difficulty is that we can't distinguish via observable evidence. With a hurricane, we can measure wind-speed and track insurance claims to distinguish between simulation and the real thing. How do we do that with consciousness? What is the observable effect of consciousness?

[mannykannot]

On the other hand, an accurate digital simulation of a mechanical calculator really does calculate. The "a simulation is not the real thing" objection breaks down when the function is information processing, on account of information's substrate independence.

[RC_ITR]

We invented a word for a very specific thing (consciousness) and are now debating whether that relatively unimportant word represents a large open set or a narrow closed set.

We do one thing in our bodies with relatively binary nervous system and a fundamentally continuous endocrine system. That's clearly and unanimously consciousness. We also, however, see other animals with similar set-ups but less capabilities, so we understand it exists on a spectrum.

We separately invented a thing that gets to similar outcomes with fundamentally binary logic gates.

Our minds are drawn to comparison and classification, so we fight over how similar or different those two things are in a way that often feels unsatisfactory because in order to meaningfully compare the two, we have to reduce them in a way that feels like its underselling either/both.

[metalcrow]

Yep that's about what i managed to get out of it as well. If you define AI as a simulation of a mapmaker, it can't be a real mapmaker. But they are never able to prove that it IS only a simulation, instead of an actual mapmaker.

[CamperBob2]

Also, since there's no way to prove that we're not entities in a simulation of something else, the argument runs out of steam in the opposite direction as well.

[dgellow]

It’s a simulation of language, not consciousness. Though the problem you mention is pretty much the same

[gwd]

> A simulation of a hurricane is not a hurricane. That's certainly true and even obvious.

I mean, if I simulated a small section of a hurricane by generating 120 mph winds and water pointed at your house, your house could still be flooded and destroyed.