The machine consciousness debate is unsolvable: you can't prove it for humans either
robleclerc · x · 2026-10-11
In a debate on whether machine consciousness can be proven, developer Rob Leclerc argues the Cartesian demand to first prove consciousness for humans is a philosophical dead end no one takes seriously—Popper had no such problem, and a realist, pragmatic stance works, especially when it matches how you live your life.
He pushes further: neither side can offer systematic proof—you can't even prove it for humans—and anyone claiming machines can't be proven conscious lives exactly as if people are conscious, making that position hard to take seriously. His interlocutor replies that they don't actually believe machines are conscious; the arguments against it are just so weak the debate is pointless.
More from AGI Musings
- Stanford and Databricks use AI agents to reproduce medical findings and test analytical robustness — ChengleiSi · 2026-10-23
- ISMS Fellow Avi Goldfarb: AI disruption raises returns to exploring research directions — avicgoldfarb · 2026-10-23
- signull on AI-found PHP exploits: economic liability is the forcing function legacy software needs — signulll · 2026-10-23
- TheStalwart: Talking computers are sparking a new philosophical boom, echoing ancient Greece — toptickcrypto · 2026-10-23
- AI cyberattacks could paradoxically accelerate AI development in an offense-defense arms race — kimmonismus · 2026-10-23
- Economist on AI detector Pangram: not a filter, but a useful verification signal — paulnovosad · 2026-10-23