TT; ' You behave as if you have "the subjective > experience of first person". And it is possible for an enough > complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour. But in the > case of the computer, you can see that there is no "subjective > experience", there are just a lot of electrical phenomena interacting > with each other. > > There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first > person experience.
MP: But surely, if the computer is complicated enough to show up 'THE EXACT SAME' behaviour, then we do not know that 'there is no first person experience'. This is the very paradox of experience; the argument from behaviour cuts BOTH ways. The danger comes from putting that little word "just" in the sentence. The fact is if there are a lot of electrical phenomena [a really, really, BIG lot] then it is quite feasible that the system may be responding to its own responses, as the behaviourists like to say. I think the wisely placed betting money is mainly going to that logical structure as prerequisite for sentience of any sort. The embodiment, though, would need to be in a massively parallel, multiply recursive, autonomous learning system in order to have sufficient scope and depth of experience to deal with interesting questions. I heard someone on the radio the other day saying that Moore's Law [doubling every 2 years] predicts that computers in about 2050 will have gross processing power similar to that of the human brain. Well the architecture may be a bit of a hurdle, but then again if each generation of computers acquires software enabling them to participate in, if not actually direct, the design of the next generation, it is feasible that during the second half of the 21Century some computers may start asking US why we think we are conscious. Regards Mark Peaty CDES [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.arach.net.au/~mpeaty/ Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Mohsen Ravanbakhsh skrev: >> >The "subjective experience" is just some sort of behaviour. You can >> make computers show the same sort of >behavior, if the computers are >> enough complicated. >> >> But we're not talking about 3rd person point of view. I can not see >> how you reduce the subjective experience of first person to the >> behavior that a third person view can evaluate! All the problem is >> this first person experience. > What you call "the subjective experience of first person" is just some > sort of behaviour. When you claim that you have "the subjective > experience of first person", I can see that you are just showing a > special kind of behaviour. You behave as if you have "the subjective > experience of first person". And it is possible for an enough > complicated computer to show up the exact same behaviour. But in the > case of the computer, you can see that there is no "subjective > experience", there are just a lot of electrical fenomena interacting > with each other. > > There is no first person experience problem, because there is no first > person experience. > > -- > Torgny Tholerus > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
