Stathis, your post is 'logical', 'professional', 'smart', - good.
It shows why we have so many posts on this list and why we get nowhere.
You handle an assumption (robot) - its qualia, characteristics, make up a
"thought-situation" and ASK about its annexed details. Now, your style is
such that one cannot just disregard the irrelevance. So someone (many, me
included<G>) respond with similar mindtwists and it goes on and on. \
Have you ever ps-analyzed a robot? Professionally, I mean.
If it is a simple digital computer, it certainly has a memory, the one fixed
into chips as this PC I am using. Your and MY memory is quite different, I
wish somebody could tell me acceptably, HOW???, but it is plastic,
approximate, mixed with emotional changes, short and in cases false. I would
throw out a robot with such memory.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
I should have been more precise with the terms "copy" and "emulate".
What I was asking is whether a robot which experiences something while
it is shovelling coal (this of course assumes that a robot can have
would experience the same thing if it were fed input to all its sensors
the same as if it were doing its job normally, such that it was not aware
inputs were in fact a sham. It seems to me that if the answer is "no" the
would need to have some mysterious extra-computational knowledge of the
world, which I find very difficult to conceptualise if we are talking about
digital computer. It is easier to conceptualise that such non-computational
may be at play in a biological brain, which would then be an argument
> let me skip the quoted texts and ask a particular question.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:41 PM
> Subject: RE: Maudlin's Demon (Argument)
> You wrote:
> Do you believe it is possible to copy a particular consciousness by
> emulating it, along
> with sham inputs (i.e. in virtual reality), on a general purpose computer?
> Or do you believe
> a coal-shovelling robot could only have the coal-shovelling experience by
> actually shovelling
> Stathis Papaioannou
> My question is about 'copy' and 'emulate'.
> Are we considering 'copying' the model and its content (in which case the
> coal shoveling robot last sentence applies) or do we include the
> interconnections unlimited in "experience", beyond the particular model we
> talk about?
> If we go "all the way" and include all input from the unlimited totality
> that may 'format' or 'complete' the model-experience, then we re-create
> 'real thing' and it is not a copy. If we restrict our copying to the
> in question (model) then we copy only that aspect and should not draw
> conclusions on the total.
> Can we 'emulate' totality? I don't think so. Can we copy the total,
> unlimited wholeness? I don't think so.
> What I feel is a restriction to "think" within a model and draw
> from it towards beyond it.
> Which looks to me like a category-mistake.
> John Mikes
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.13.0/465 - Release Date: 10/06/06
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at