> For feelings - like pain - there is a problem. But I don't feel like
> spending much time explaining it little by little through many emails.
> There are books and articles on this topic.
Indeed there are and they are entirely unconvincing. Anyone who writes
something can get it published.
If you can't prove that you're not a simulation, then you certainly can't prove
that "pain that really *hurts*" isn't possible. I'll just simply argue that
you *are* a simulation, that you do experience "pain that really *hurts*", and
therefore, my point is proved. I'd say that the burden of proof is upon you or
anyone else who makes claims like ""Why you can't make a computer that feels
pain".
I've read all of Dennett's books. I would argue that there are far more people
with credentials who disagree with him than agree. His arguments really don't
boil down to anything better than "I don't see how it happens or how to do it
so it isn't possible."
I still haven't seen you respond to the simulation argument (which I feel *is*
the stake through Dennett's argument) but if you want to stop debating without
doing so that's certainly cool.
Mark
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
