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 <[email protected]>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 [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. > > -- 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.
