On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 12:06:18 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg
> > yes, doctor: This is really the sleight of hand that props up the entire
> > thought experiment. If you agree that you are nothing but your brain
> > function and that your brain function can be replaced by the functioning
> > non-brain devices, then you have already agreed that human individuality
> > a universal commodity.
> We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is irrelevant
> to you. However, I'm still not sure despite multiple posts what your
> position is on how much of your brain function could be replaced by an
> appropriate machine. Presumably you agree that some of it can. For example,
> if your job is to repeatedly push a button then a computer could easily
> control a robot to perform this function. And this behaviour could be made
> incrementally more complicated, so that for example the robot would press
> the button faster if it heard the command "faster", if that were also part
> of your job. With a good enough computer, good enough I/O devices and good
> enough programming the robot could perform very complex tasks. You would
> say it still does only what it's programmed to do, but how far do you think
> given the most advanced technology it could get slotting into human society
> and fooling everyone into believing that it is human? What test would you
> devise in order to prove that it was not?
I think it would progress just like dementia or brain cancer as far as the
subject is concerned. They would experience increasing alienation from
their mind and body as more of their brain was converted to an automated
processing and control system. The extent to which that would translate
into behavior that doctors, family, and friends would notice depends
entirely on the quality of the technology used to destroy and replace the
The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone be
walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back
on. Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different
durations. That is the only test that could possibly work as far as I can
tell - of course it wouldn't prove success or failure beyond any
theoretical doubt, but it would be a pretty good indicator.
> Stathis Papaioannou
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at