On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 8:18:07 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Craig Weinberg
> >> We knew you didn't accept this, so the rest of the argument is
> >> 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
> >> 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
> >> incrementally more complicated, so that for example the robot would
> >> the button faster if it heard the command "faster", if that were also
> >> of your job. With a good enough computer, good enough I/O devices and
> >> 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
> >> and fooling everyone into believing that it is human? What test would
> >> devise in order to prove that it was not?
> > I think it would progress just like dementia or brain cancer as far as
> > subject is concerned. They would experience increasing alienation from
> > mind and body as more of their brain was converted to an automated
> > processing and control system. The extent to which that would translate
> > behavior that doctors, family, and friends would notice depends entirely
> > the quality of the technology used to destroy and replace the person.
> > The test that I would use would be, as I have mentioned, to have someone
> > walked off of their brain one hemisphere at a time, and then walked back
> > Ideally this process would be repeated several times for different
> > durations. That is the only test that could possibly work as far as I
> > tell - of course it wouldn't prove success or failure beyond any
> > doubt, but it would be a pretty good indicator.
> I'm not talking about gradual brain replacement specifically but
> replacement of the whole person with an AI controlling a robot. We
> assume the machine is very technologically advanced. Progress in AI
> may have been slow over the past few decades but extrapolate that slow
> pace of change a thousand years into the future. Do you think you
> would still be able to distinguish the robot from the human, and if so
> what test would you use?
The ability to test depends entirely on my familiarity with the human and
how good the technology is. Can I touch them, smell them? If so, then I
would be surprised if I could be fooled by an inorganic body. Has there
ever been one synthetic imitation of a natural biological product that can
withstand even moderate examination?
If you limit the channel of my interaction with the robot however, I stand
much less of a chance of being able to tell the difference. A video
conference with the robot only requires that they look convincing on
camera. We can't tell the difference between a live performance and a taped
performance unless there is some clue in the content. That is because we
aren't literally present so we are only dealing with a narrow channel of
sense experience to begin with.
In any case, what does being able to tell from the outside have to do with
whether or not the thing feels? If it is designed by experts to fool other
people into thinking that it is alive, then so what if it succeeds at
fooling everyone? Something can't fool itself into thinking that it is
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at