↓ Skip to main content

Searle’s wager

Overview of attention for article published in AI & Society, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Searle’s wager
Published in
AI & Society, March 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00146-011-0317-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil Levy, Levy N

Abstract

Nicholas Agar has recently argued that it would be irrational for future human beings to choose to radically enhance themselves by uploading their minds onto computers. Utilizing Searle's argument that machines cannot think, he claims that uploading might entail death. He grants that Searle's argument is controversial, but he claims, so long as there is a non-zero probability that uploading entails death, uploading is irrational. I argue that Agar's argument, like Pascal's wager on which it is modelled, fails, because the principle that we (or future agents) ought to avoid actions that might entail death is not action guiding. Too many actions fall under its scope for the principle to be plausible. I also argue that the probability that uploading entails death is likely to be lower than Agar recognizes.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Lecturer 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 30%
Philosophy 2 20%
Computer Science 2 20%
Unspecified 1 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 10%
Other 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#372,239
of 3,685,110 outputs
Outputs from AI & Society
#5
of 66 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,566
of 112,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AI & Society
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,685,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 66 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 112,809 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them