Questioning the Moratorium on Synthetic Phenomenology

Aleksander, I. 2022. “From Turing to Conscious Machines” Philosophies 7, no. 3: 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7030057.Search in Google Scholar

Aleksander, I. 2020. The category of machines that become conscious, J. Artif. Intell. Conscious. 7(1), 313.Search in Google Scholar

Aleksander, I., and Morton, H. 2007. Why axiomatic models of being conscious? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 15–27.Search in Google Scholar

Arabales, R., A. Redezma, and A. Sanchis. 2009. Establishing a roadmap and metric for conscious machine development. Published in: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Confenrence on Cognitive Informatics, Kowloon, Hong Kong, 15–17 June 2009, pp. 94–101. https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/10430/establishing arrabales ICCI 2009 ps.pdf;jsessionid=CFD777964ED614DF35B3E605F4C9F9DE?sequence=2.Search in Google Scholar

Audi, R. 2015. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 3^rded. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bain, D., M. Brady and J. Corns. 2020. Philosophy of Suffering. Metaphysics, Value, and Normativity. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Bartoletti, I. 2021. An Artificial Revolution. London: The Indigo Press.Search in Google Scholar

Basl, J. 2013. The Ethics of Creating Artificial Consciousness. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers 13 (1):23–29.Search in Google Scholar

Becker, A. 2019. What is Real? London: John Murray (Publishers).Search in Google Scholar

Bennet, M., D. Dennett, P. Hacker, and J. Searle. 2007. Neuroscience and Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Blackburn, S. 1994. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. p. 58.Search in Google Scholar

Bostrom, N. 2012. The superintelligent will: Motivation and instrumental rationality in advanced artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 22(2 – special issue ‘Philosophy of AI’ ed. Vincent C. Mü ller), 71–85.Search in Google Scholar

Brandon, C. 2023. Epistemic Modality. IEP. Available at https://iep.utm.edu/ep-moda/.Search in Google Scholar

Bulter, S. 2019. Why Medieval philosophy matters? London: Bloomsbury Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Cali, C. 2022. Philosophical, Experimental and Synthetic Phenomenology: The Study of Perception for Biological, Artificial Agents and Environments. Foundations of science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-022-09869-7Search in Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2017. Artificial Consciousness – David Chalmers. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlAIuv31YKs.Search in Google Scholar

Chalmers, D. 2023. SuperIntelligence. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPQJUP52V4ASearch in Google Scholar

Chrisley, R. 2009. Synthetic Phenomenology. International Journal of Machine Consciousness 2009 01:01, 53–70. DOI: 10.1142/S1793843009000074.Search in Google Scholar

Chrisley, R., & Parthemore, J. 2007. Synthetic phenomenology: Exploiting embodiment to specify the nonconceptual content of visual experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 44–58.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, J. 2012. The Importance of Suffering: the value and meaning of emotional discontent. London: Routledge ISBN 0-415-66780-1Search in Google Scholar

Defense. 2002. “Defense.gov News Transcript: DoD News Briefing – Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers, United States Department of Defense (defense.gov)”. February 12, 2002. Available at https://archive.ph/20180320091111/http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636.Search in Google Scholar

Dennett, D. 1991. Consciousness explained. Boston: Back Bay Books.Search in Google Scholar

Dennett, D. 2018. From Bacteria to Bach. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

DeRose, K. 1991. Epistemic Possibilities. The Philosophical Review, 100(4), 581–605. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185175Search in Google Scholar

Dreyfus, H. L., and S. E. Dreyfus. 1988, Making a mind versus modelling the brain. In Drefyus, H. L. Skillful Coping. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 205–230.Search in Google Scholar

Floridi L. and J.W. Sanders. 2004. On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machines 14: 349–379.Search in Google Scholar

Frances, B. 2021. The Problem of Suffering. In: An Agnostic Defends God. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73331-5_6.Search in Google Scholar

Fodor, J. and M. Pitattelli-Marini. 2010. What Darwin got wrong. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Search in Google Scholar

Gamez, D. 2008. Progress in machine consciousness, Consciousness and Cognition, Volume 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 887–910, ISSN 1053–8100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.04.005.Search in Google Scholar

Gawdat, M. 2013. Don’t bring children into this AI world. EMERGENCY EPISODE: Ex-Google Officer Finally Speaks Out On The Dangers Of AI! – Mo Gawdat. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk-nQ7HF6k4Search in Google Scholar

Godfrey-Smith, P. 2018. Other Minds. London: Harper Collins.Search in Google Scholar

Gupta, V. 2020. The Future Stuff. London: Unbound.Search in Google Scholar

Hinton, G. 2023. Statement on AI Risk. Open Letter. Available at https://www.safe.ai/statement-on-ai-risk#open-letter.Search in Google Scholar

Honderich, T. 2005. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. 2^nded. Oxford; Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hopkins, P. D. 2012. Why uploading will not work, or, the ghosts haunting transhumanism. International Journal of Machine Consciousness. Vol. 4, No. 1 (2012) 1250014.Search in Google Scholar

Humphrey, N. 2012. Soul Dust. The Magic of Consciousness. London: Quercus.Search in Google Scholar

Klein, N. 2023. AI machines aren’t ‘hallucinating’. But their makers are. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/08/ai-machines-hallucinating-naomi-klein.Search in Google Scholar

Kleiner, J. 2020. “Mathematical Models of Consciousness” Entropy 22, no. 6: 609. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22060609Search in Google Scholar

Koene, R.A. 2012. “Fundamentals of Whole Brain Emulation: State, Transition and Update Representations”. International Journal on Machine Consciousness Vol. 4, No. 1 (2012). pp 5–21.Search in Google Scholar

Koene, R.A. 2013. Uploading to Substrate-Independent Minds. The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, First Edition. Edited by Max More and Natasha Vita-More. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 146–156.Search in Google Scholar

Kroes P. and P-P., Verbeek. 2010. Introduction: The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. In Kroes P. and P-P., Verbeek (eds.). 2010. The Moral Status of Technical Artefacts. Berlin: Springer. Pp. 1–11.Search in Google Scholar

Krzanowski, R. and P. Polak. 2023. Philosophy in Technology: Objectives, Questions, Methods, and Issues. Workshop on Philosophy in Technology: The Philosophical Challenges for Technology from Various Points of View, April 28–29, 2023. Wrocław University of Science and Technology. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370653723_Philosophy_in_Technology_Objectives_Questions_Methods_and_Issues.Search in Google Scholar

Langle, A. 2008. Suffering – an Existential Challenge: Understanding, dealing and coping with suffering from an existential-analytic perspective. International Journal of Existential Psychology & Psychotherapy. Volume 2, Issue 1. Available at https://www.meaning.ca/web/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/115-13-486-1-10-20171212.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Lem, S. 2014/1965. The Cyberiad. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, C.S. 2001/1940.The Problem of Pain. San Francisco: Harper.Search in Google Scholar

Magidor, O. 2016. Category Mistakes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Magidor, O. 2022. “Category Mistakes”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/category-mistakes/.Search in Google Scholar

Marcus, G. 2022. Artificial General Intelligence Is Not as Imminent as You Might Think. Scientific American. Available at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-general-intelligence-is-not-as-imminent-as-you-might-think1/.Search in Google Scholar

McCarthy, J. 1959. “Programs with Common Sense” at the Wayback Machine (archived October 4, 2013). In Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, 756–91. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Search in Google Scholar

Metzinger T. 2008. Empirical perspectives from the self-model theory of subjectivity: a brief summary with examples. Prog Brain Res. 2008;168:215–45. doi: 10.1016/S0079-6123(07)68018-2. PMID: 18166398.Search in Google Scholar

Metzinger T. 2003. Being No One. The Self-Model Theory of Sub jectivity. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Metzinger T. 2007. Self models. Scholarpedia, 2(10):4174. Available at http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self_models.Search in Google Scholar

Metzinger T. 2017. Suffering.In Kurt Almqvist & Anders Haag (2017) [eds.], The Return of Consciousness. Stockholm: Axel and Margaret Ax:son Johnson Foundation. ISBN 978-91-89672-90-1Search in Google Scholar

Metzinger, T. 2021. Why we should worry about computer suffering. IAI News./articles/why-we-should-worry-about-computer-suffering-auid-1761.Search in Google Scholar

Metzinger, T. 2021a. Artificial Suffering: An Argument for a Global Moratorium on Synthetic Phenomenology. (Philosophisches Seminar, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz, Germany) Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Consciousness 2021 08:01, 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1142/S270507852150003X.Search in Google Scholar

Metzinger, T. 2021b. Three Types Of Arguments for a Global Moratorium on Synthetic Phenomenology. Pufendorf lecture at the Department of Philosophy, Lund University, 21 October 2021. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzhpmAlMURQ.Search in Google Scholar

Mickunas, A. and J. Pilott. 2023. A Critical Understanding of Artificial Intelligence: A Phenomenological Foundation. Singapore: Bentham Science Publishers Pte. Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Mlsbt. 2021. The problem of artificial suffering. Effective Altruism Forum. Available at https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/JCBPexSaGCfLtq3DP/the-problem-of-artificial-sufferingSearch in Google Scholar

Müller, V. C., & Cannon, M. 2022. Existential risk from AI and orthogonality: Can we have it both ways? Ratio, 35, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12320.Search in Google Scholar

Powers, T. M., and Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, ‘The Ethics of the Ethics of AI’, in Markus D. Dubber, Frank Pasquale, and Sunit Das (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI (2020; online edn, Oxford Academic, 9 July 2020), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.2, accessed 13 May 2023.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, S. 2019. Human Compatible. AI and problems of control. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Ryle, G. 1942. The Concept of mind. Routledge edition (2009). New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Sager, A. R. 2021. “The Existential Problem of Evil: Theodicy, Theosis, and the Threat of Meaninglessness” (2021). ETD Collection for Fordham University. AAI28496133. Available at https://research.library.fordham.edu/dissertations/AAI28496133Search in Google Scholar

Sandberg, A. 2013. Feasibility of Whole Brain Emulation. Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence, 251–264. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-31674-6_19.Search in Google Scholar

Sandberg, A. and N. Bostrom. 2008. Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap, Technical Report #2008-3, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University. Available at www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/reports/2008-3.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Schneider, S. 2020. How to Catch an AI Zombie In: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Edited by: S. Matthew Liao, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190905040.003.0016Search in Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. 1984. Minds Brains, and Science, Penguin, London.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. 1990. ‘Is The Brain A Digital Computer?’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 64(3), 21–37.Search in Google Scholar

Shevlin, H. 2019. To build conscious machines, focus on general intelligence: A framework for the assessment of consciousness in biological and artificial systems, in Proc. Towards Conscious AI Systems Symposium, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, Vol. 2287, Paper 10 (Palo Alto, CA), 8 pages.Search in Google Scholar

Smith D.H. and G. Schillaci. 2021. Why Build a Robot With Artificial Consciousness? How to Begin? A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Design and Implementation of a Synthetic Model of Consciousness. Front. Psychol. 12:530560. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.530560Search in Google Scholar

Sotala, K., and L. Gloor. 2017. Superintelligence as a Cause or Cure for Risks of Astronomical Suffering. Informatica 41 (2017) 389–400_389.Search in Google Scholar

Stevenson, A. (ed.). 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English, third edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Suffering n.d. What did the Buddha mean by suffering? Available at https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/what-did-the-buddha-mean-by-suffering/Search in Google Scholar

Tomasik, B. 2019. What are suffering subroutines? Avaiable at https://reducing-suffering.org/what-are-suffering-subroutines/Search in Google Scholar

Veliz, C. 2021. Moral zombies: why algorithms are not moral agents. AI & Society (2021) 36:487–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01189-xSearch in Google Scholar

Wasson, D. 2018. Roman Daily Life. Available at https://www.worldhistory.org/article/637/roman-daily-life/Search in Google Scholar

Woodridge, A. 2020. The Road to Conscious Machines. London: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power (Campus, 2018; PublicAffairs, 2019).Search in Google Scholar