data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18916/18916de460f56b0a126b4afd4bfffe6a710a0ad9" alt=""
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 2018
Pages: 579-590
Series: Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences
Full citation:
, "Could robots be phenomenally conscious?", Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences 17 (3), 2018, pp. 579-590.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7dffa/7dffab55ad3ab890f71554f5c8367df17f466b5d" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06505/065056aa5eb3b2545dd806cbd182cf9b00781d18" alt=""
Could robots be phenomenally conscious?
pp. 579-590
in: Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences 17 (3), 2018.Abstract
In a recent book (Tye 2017), Michael Tye argues that we have reason to attribute phenomenal consciousness to functionally similar robots like commander Data of Star Trek. He relies on a kind of inference to the best explanation – "Newton's Rule', as he calls it. I will argue that Tye's liberal view of consciousness attribution fails for two reasons. First, it leads into an inconsistency in consciousness attributions. Second, and even more importantly, it fails because ceteris is not paribus. The big, categorical difference in history between Data-like robots on the one hand and human beings on the other hand defeats the ceteris paribus assumption, which can be seen by various considerations. So the inference rule cannot be applied. We should not attribute phenomenal consciousness to robots like Data.
Publication details
Publisher: Springer
Place: Berlin
Year: 2018
Pages: 579-590
Series: Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences
Full citation:
, "Could robots be phenomenally conscious?", Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences 17 (3), 2018, pp. 579-590.