On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: > > >> I'm not saying we shouldn't do science, just that we can't be *sure* > >> that something which behaves as if it's conscious is actually > >> conscious. A thermostat may have a primitive consciousness or it > >> might not; I don't know. > >> > > > > I do not get your point. For example please develop a theory that will > > ascribe a thermostat a primitive consciousness. > > > > I was talking about scientific experiments described in the book of > Jeffrey > > Gray. I agree that each experiment is based on assumption. Yet, if we > talk > > about science, the please make a scientific critique of these > experiments. > > Then it would be easier to follow you. > > It's simply a fact that we can't deduce consciousness from behaviour. > I think it may be premature to say that. We currently lack a well established theory of what consciousness. We have clues as to what it might not be, and what seems to be involved, but we are far from an established theory. Let's say 200 years from now we understand all the computations necessary to run a mind upload. Whether some computer is performing some computation is third-person verifiable. We may not be 100% sure it is conscious, but we might be as sure of it as any of our other theories. It is like saying it is simply a fact that we can't deduce the universe was not created 10 seconds ago. We may not be able to prove it, but I think eventually we might have a pretty good idea what things are conscious. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. 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.