this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
140 points (94.3% liked)

Asklemmy

45322 readers
1273 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
140
What do you believe that most people of your political creed don't? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
519 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Just wanted to prove that political diversity ain't dead. Remember, don't downvote for disagreements.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

True, but I don't agree with you in the first place that number of physical interactions is a good way to measure computation (for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation.). I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight, I just think that without it there is no consciousness.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

First, a minor correction:

for instance, I would consider the heat-death of the universe to be the end of computation

This is an easy mistake to make, heat death is actually a very cold noninteracting state, so your point doesn't contradict physical interaction being computation. Though I trust that you really don't see interaction and computation as the same.

Edit: just looked up some heat death info, there is actually quite a range of ideas there so I guess I can't be confident on which one you meant.

In the beginning you said that experience rate was an important factor for moral weight, has that changed? If it hasn't, how do you reconcile that with:

I also am not sure that computation is a particularly good proxy for moral weight,

Also, for my own curiosity: how do you distinguish interaction from computation?

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I don't see why computation is tied to experience rate. You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.

I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

You already pointed out examples of what appear to be higher amounts of computation in the brain not apparently tied to experience rate.

I actually would say that high interaction is high computation is high experience rate. I don't see how they are separated.

I think computation is meaningful, whereas interaction can be high-entropy and meaningless. I would probably need to consult E.T. Jaynes to have more precise definitions of the difference between these notions.

I'd be extremely curious to see how you define "meaningful" in this context. This seems to drive your moral hierarchy. Correct me if I'm wrong of course.