On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote:
> If anyone is not familiar with David Chalmers "Absent Qualia, Fading > Qualia, Dancing Qualia" You should have a look at > it<http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html>first. > I confess I have not read it because I have little confidence it's any better than the Chinese Room. Well OK I exaggerate, it's probably better than that (what isn't) but there is something about all these anti AI thought experiments that has always confused me. Let's suppose I'm dead wrong and Chambers really has found something new and strange and maybe even paradoxical about consciousness, what I want to know is why am I required to explain it if I want to continue to believe that a intelligent computers would be conscious? Whatever argument Chambers has it could just as easily be turned against the idea that the intelligent behavior of other people indicates consciousness, and yet not one person on this list believes in Solipsism, not even the most vocal AI critics. Why? Why is it that I must find the flaws in all these thought experiments but the anti AI people feel no need to do so? In the extraordinarily unlikely event that Chambers has shown that consciousness is paradoxical (and its probably just as childish as all the others) I would conclude that he just made an error someplace that nobody has found yet. When Zeno showed that motion was paradoxical nobody thought that motion did not exist but that Zeno just made a mistake, and he did, although the error wasn't found till the invention of the Calculus thousands of years later. John K Clark -- 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.
