Hi Bruno Marchal By self I mean conscious self. Computers are not conscious because codes can describe, but they can't perceive. Perception requires a live viewer or self.
I had no racial intentions in mind when I spoke of not having a subject, and I find it difficult to see how you could imagine that. And not having a subject would mean you are dead. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/24/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-24, 09:29:50 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment 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 wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Craig Weinberg > 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.
