People have too much time on their hand to argue back and forth.
Whatever (theory) we talk about has been born from human mind(s)
consequently only HALF _ TRUE max (if at all).

"I" imagine te doctor, "I" imagine the numbers (there are none in Nature)
"I" imagine controversies and matches, arithemtics, calculus and bio.
Project the "I"-s into 3rd person "I"-s and FEEL justified to BELIEVE
that it is  * T R U E  .*
**
How 'universal' is a universal machine (number)? it extends its universality
till our imagination's end. Can we imagine what we cannot imagine?
**
*JM*
**


On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Has someone already mentioned this?
>
> I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make
> sense...or...
>
> The idea of saying yes to the doctor presumes that we, in the thought
> experiment, bring to the thought experiment universe:
>
> 1. our sense of own significance (we have to be able to care about
> ourselves and our fate in the first place)
> 2. our perceptual capacity to jump to conclusions without logic (we
> have to be able feel what it seems like rather than know what it
> simply is.)
>
> Because of 1, it is assumed that the thought experiment universe
> includes the subjective experience of personal value - that the
> patient has a stake, or 'money to bet'. Because of 2, it is assumed
> that libertarian free will exists in the scenario - we have to be able
> to 'bet' in the first place. As far as I know, comp can only answer
> 'True, doctor', 'False, doctor', or 'I don't know, or I can't answer,
> doctor.'
>
> So, what this means is that in the scenario, while not precluding that
> a form of comp based consciousness could exist, does preclude that it
> is the only form of consciousness that exists, so therefore does not
> prove that in comp consciousness must arise from comp since it relies
> on non-comp to prove it. The same goes for the Turing Test, which
> after all is only about betting on imitation. Does the robot seem real
> to me? Bruno adds another layer to this by forcing our thought
> experimenter to care whether they are or not.
>
> What say ye, mighty logicians? Both of these tests succeed
> unintentionally at revealing the essentials of consciousness, not in
> front of our eyes with the thought experiment, but behind our backs.
> The sleight of hand is hidden innocently in the assumption of free
> will (and significance). In any universe where consciousness arises
> from comp, consciousness may be able to pass or fail the test as the
> tested object, but it cannot receive the test as a testing subject
> unless free will and significance are already presumed to be comp.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>

-- 
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