Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 165
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We play the game from their perspective. This is literally the necessary and sufficient condition to establish qualia, I think.
This is a bizarre perspective. That the medium in which a work of fiction is presented actually influences the facts about the fictional world is something I've never encountered and something that seems completely wrong. Controlling a video game character (or "character" or "object,") established that the person dictating the actions of the character has qualia, not that the character within the world does.
Even if we were to posit that it did work that way, this doesn't get around the problem that the game is filled with NPC androids who are treated by the game as if they have qualia. NPCs, obviously by definition, have no human controlling them, and so they fail to meet this sufficent and necessary criterion for having qualia. Thus, it would make no sense for the game to present them as having them, and likewise for the in-universe characters to do so. Likewise, NPC humans - the fleshy kind - lack a human controlling them, and thus they fail to meet this criterion. Yet the game presents them as having qualia deserving of empathy, and in-universe characters treat them as if they do.
I don't think this is a good criterion for this particular thing.
I mean, I don't know of any way to hard-prove consciousness other than experiencing it. That's the problem. We assume other people have it either because of religious dogma or by induction from each of us having it and other humans looking similar enough to us. This can extend to the NPC androids.
I don't think humans looking similar to ourselves is why we believe they have qualia. For instance, I don't believe that a wax statue has qualia, nor do I believe that a cardboard cutout of Harry Potter has qualia. I think there's something about the actual physical (biological) similarity to ourselves, not merely the appearance, that make us believe that other humans have qualia. Whether or not androids are sufficiently similar to us to justify such a belief is an interesting question that has been talked about in scifi at least since Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K Dick, and I'd guess even earlier, and the only thing we know so far is that no one knows the correct answer.
You haven't explained the actual sufficient and necessary criterion you outlined, though. Could you explain the reasoning for why "being controlled by the player" makes sense as the one single criterion for a fictional character having qualia within their fictional universe? Would you say that, any game like a Walking Dead or Mass Effect where the in-universe characters and sometimes the game tone itself presents life-or-death decisions about NPCs as important is making no sense, since these NPCs definitionally have no human controller and thus no qualia to lose?
When I was talking about appearance I was implying also the biological similarity.
Within the fictional universe, no one but any given android can know for sure that this android has qualia. Just how a human can only know that about themselves. If you're wondering why others in-universe believe an android has qualia, I believe "anthropomorphization" is sufficient as an explanation. Some people think ChatGPT has qualia in real life. And it's not like everyone in-universe believes it, either - have you missed the entire status quo that assumes androids aren't people?
As for why the player should believe an android has qualia, that's what my argument is for. We see through its eyes and witness it breaking through its programming. That's the most evidence we could possibly get. If it's not sufficient for you, nothing is.
Well, not really. Not anymore than how R2D2 in Star Wars acting idiosyncratically and agentically makes all the robots in that universe have qualia.
It doesn't. However, R2D2 acting agentically is evidence towards it having qualia, as is it being a viewpoint character in a Star Wars videogame. If there were other similarly-acting R2 droids, it would be weaker evidence of them having qualia as well.
I think you've quoted the wrong part or missed my point. There is no stronger evidence, and while it might not convince you that R2 or Connor have qualia, that just means there is nothing that will. So why ask "why do they believe androids have qualia" when an answer that would convince you does not exist?
There's no stronger evidence? Really? Nothing the game can do to establish a likelihood of qualia in its androids, than having you play as one of them?
Saying there's nothing that could convince someone with a differing opinion is just a cop-out.
What would be stronger evidence, in your opinion?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link