Bruno writes > > Do you imagine that it's possible that we could go to > > another star, and encounter beings who discoursed with > > us about every single other thing, yet denied that they > > had consciousness, and professed that they had no idea > > what we were talking about? Yes or No! I want an answer. > > Do you think that this *could* happen someday? > > No. But that does not solve the problem. Even Feigenbaum's Eliza was > able to talk on consciousness.
Only to the approximate extent that a tape recorder does. The key difference is that one understands that actual computations are performed in the legitimate cases of consciousness. > 1) Do you agree it is wrong to torture a sensible being? (and right to > send someone who does that in jail) ? Certainly. > 2) Do you agree there is nothing wrong to torture a sculpture or a doll? I do. > Now japanese, I have read, makes cleverer dolls who simulate quite well > "being tortured", or "looking as being sensible", but of course they > are just zombie, not more clever than Feigenbaum's Eliza. Exactly. > But they makes progress. The mind-body problem is: at which stage of > the progress should we send a doll's torturer in jail? > Should we wait for the doll being able to win a trial in court? Even > women in many countries are not yet able to do that, you know. That's a good question. I strongly affirm that WE NEED IN EVERY CASE TO MAKE A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE MACHINERY INVOLVED, AND USE OUR BEST INSIGHTS. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. Lee