Are we not dancing around the Turing Test here?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EverythingList" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: Nothing to Explain about 1st Person C!
> 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
1) Do you agree it is wrong to torture a sensible being? (and right to
send someone who does that in jail) ?
2) Do you agree there is nothing wrong to torture a sculpture or a doll?
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.
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.