On 8/1/2011 5:07 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 9:59 PM, Craig Weinberg<whatsons...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Nice. You're making my point though. We would have no clue that our
brains could think by the exterior behavior of the neurons it's made
of. It's only because we are our brains that we know it is the case
that groups of neurons do think and feel.

That's just your assertion and it is doubtful. We have a clue that other people think because of their exterior behavior; and we know experimentally that that behavior is controlled by afferent and efferent neurons and that it is dependent on neurons in the brain. We have this clue purely by external observation and do not require introspection to arrive at it. In fact it was once thought that the locus of thinking was the gut, before further study found it to be the brain.

Therefore, designing
something based upon only what our brain appears to us to be doing
(not much...  just another interesting organ in the body doing it's
cell/organ things) doesn't mean that the thinking and feeling is going
to show up by itself.

If the behavior shows up then that means that thinking and feeling are showing up as surely as your dog thinks and feels.

If we could modify our own minds first to be
able to see and feel the thoughts and feelings of another brain, then
we would be more likely to be able to tell whether we were on the
right track in designing a deep AGI. Without that sense, we're like
blind people comparing the beauty of the pictures we've painted -
insisting that if it feels like the Mona Lisa to touch then there's no
reason why it couldn't look exactly like the Mona Lisa. You need the
right brushstrokes, definitely, but if you can't see the color of the
paint and do it all in black it doesn't much matter.

You're ignoring the generality of the Church-Turing thesis which shows that computation is generic and doesn't depend on the medium. You argue purely by analogy. Analogies can be helpful, but they aren't arguments.

Brent
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. --- David Hume (1711-1776), Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals


*If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. *

(David Hume (1711-1776), Scottish philosopher. Enquiries Concerning the Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals
1. You agree that is possible to make something that behaves as if
it's conscious but isn't conscious.

2. Therefore it would be possible to make a brain component that
behaves just like normal brain tissue but lacks consciousness.

3. And since such a brain component behaves normally the rest of the
brain should be have normally when it is installed.

4. So it is possible to have, say, half of your brain replaced with
unconscious components and you would both behave normally and feel
that you were completely normal.

If you accept the first point, then points 2 to 4 necessarily follow.
If you see an error in the reasoning can you point out exactly where
it is?



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to