On 10/24/2012 10:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:10:24 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/24/2012 9:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Or what if we don't care? We don't care about slaughtering cattle,
as computers go. We manage not to think about starving children in
humans. And we ignore the looming disasters of oil depletion, water
warming which will beset humans who are our children.
Sure, yeah I wouldn't expect mainstream society to care, except maybe for
people, I am mainly focused on what seems to be like an astronomically
prospect that we will someday find it possible to make a person out of a
but won't be able to just make the program itself and no person attached.
Right. John McCarthy (inventor of LISP) worried and wrote about that
ago. He cautioned that we should not make robots conscious with emotions
humans because then it would be unethical use them like robots.
It's arbitrary to think of robots though. It can be anything that represents computation
to something. An abacus, a card game, anything. Otherwise it's prejudice based on form.
Especially given that we have never made a computer program that can do
whatsoever other than reconfigure whatever materials are able to execute the
program, I find it implausible that there will be a magical line of code
cannot be executed without an experience happening to someone.
So it's a non-problem for you. You think that only man-born-of-woman or
be conscious and have qualia. Or are you concerned that we are
offending atoms all the time?
Everything has qualia, but only humans have human qualia. Animals have animal qualia,
organisms have biological qualia, etc.
So computers have computer qualia. Do their qualia depend on whether they are sold-state
or vacuum-tube? germanium or silicon? PNP or NPN? Do they feel different when they run
LISP or C++? Do you have Craig qualia?
No matter how hard we try, we can never just make a drawing of these
to check our math without invoking the power of life and death. It's really
It's not even good Sci-Fi, it's just too lame.
I think we can, because although I like Bruno's theory I think the MGA is
at least incomplete. I think the simulated intelligence needs a simulated
environment, essentially another world, in which to *be* intelligent. And
where your chalk board consciousness fails. It needs to be able to
a chalkboard world. So it's not just a question of going to a low enough
it's also a question of going to a high enough level.
A chalkboard world just involves a larger chalkboard.
Right. And it involves great chalkboard sex - but none we need worry about.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
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