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, rclo...@verizon.net
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 <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com >
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to