Edit - Philosophy Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Rev

+1 This answer addresses the question with a broad metaphysical flexibility.
– J D
Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 19:38
Is it true that a neurological-centric theory wouldn't presume that the functional equivalency is the important property, and not the possession of neurons proper? The ANN of Pitts and McCulloch presumes that the model in some way captures the essence.
– J D
Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 20:39
@JD I would rate the concept that artificial neural nets are conscious as a mechanical identity theory, however neural nets are currently primarily emulated, making their use in modern AI an algorithmic identity theory. Could you point to where Pitts and McCulloch make any identity theory claim though? cs.cmu.edu/~./epxing/Class/10715/reading/…
– Dcleve
Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 22:01
lol It's been a while. I do have some annotations in my copy a la Boden's AI philosophy compendium, but I'll review to sharpen the focus. No one may address the question directly if neural functional equivalence crosses the claims that neurons are necessary for consciousness and that there are functional equivalences that are circumscribed with the notion of "neuron". Maybe Searle's work on philosophy and neurology (or was it a dialog edited between Searle and Dennett.)
– J D
Commented Oct 24, 2023 at 22:25
"recursive neural nets do not always exhibit consciousness" - When have NNs exhibited consciousness? We haven't made a full artificial replica of the brain, and artificial NNs haven't achieved consciousness, so calling such a hypothetical future classification ad hoc at this stage would make about as much sense as saying "yeah, well, rocks aren't conscious, therefore calling humans conscious is ad hoc and unpredicted". You're ignoring the possibility of there being some non-ad-hoc differentiating criteria. Also, if consciousness is a spectrum, your argument fails much harder.
– NotThatGuy
Commented Oct 25, 2023 at 12:08

| Show 6 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »