On 24 Sep 2012, at 14:02, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
You need a self or observer to be conscious, and computers
have no self. So they can't be conscious.
Few lines of instructions gives a self to computer. I told you that
"self" is what computer science explains the best.
Consciousness = a subject looking at, or aware of, an object.
Computers have no subject.
That is a quite strong statement akin to racism.
And it is false once you define the subject by the one who knows, as
incompleteness can be used to justify a notion of (private,
incommunicable) knowledge for computers.
Bruno
Roger Clough, [email protected]
9/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-23, 09:02:12
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 3:53 AM, John Clark <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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 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.
The paper presents a very strong argument *in favour* of computers
having consciousness. I haven't seen anyone who understands it refute
it, or even try to refute it. It's worth reading at least part 3, as
it constitutes a proof of that which you suspected.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
