In my limited experience, UCMA supporters explicitly rejected the assertion that "arguments" and "being convinced by an argument" are equivalent to "evidence" and "performing a bayesian update on evidence".
Eh, for the UCMA arguments I'm familiar with, they would be happy to work within the (excellent) Solomonoff framework as long as you allowed for probabilities of 0 and 1. I get that this isn't an unproblematic allowance, but nothing about the math actually requires us to exclude probabilities of 0 and 1 (so far as I understand it).
Whew, that's a lot of stuff that we need to design into our mind that seems completely unnecessary for a mind to have sentience, as far as I can tell.
What is necessary? It'll pay off for us to get this on the table.
What is necessary? It'll pay off for us to get this on the table.
If we knew exactly, someone would have a nobel for it and the nonperson predicate would be a solved problem by now, along with the Hard Problem of Consciousness and a throng of other things currently puzzling scientists the world over.
However, we do have a general idea of the direction to take, with an example here of some of the things involved. There's still the whole debate and questions around the so-called "hard problem of consciousness", but overall it doesn't even seem as... (read more)
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.