On 25 Oct 2012, at 07:10, meekerdb 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, which are pretty smart as computers go. We manage not to think about starving children in Africa, and they *are* humans. And we ignore the looming disasters of oil depletion, water pollution, and global
warming which will beset humans who are our children.

Sure, yeah I wouldn't expect mainstream society to care, except maybe for some people, I am mainly focused on what seems to be like an astronomically unlikely prospect that we will someday find it possible to make a person out of a program, 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 problem decades ago. He cautioned that we should not make robots conscious with emotions like humans because then it would be unethical use them like robots.

I doubt we will have any choice in the matter. I think that intelligence is a purely emotional state, and that we can't separate it from the other emotion. They will be conscious and have emotions, for economical reasons only. Not human emotion, but humans' slave emotions. No reason to worry, it will take some time, in our branches of histories.




Especially given that we have never made a computer program that can do anything 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 which 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 wetware can be conscious and have qualia. Or are you concerned that we are inadvertently offending atoms all the time?

No matter how hard we try, we can never just make a drawing of these functions just to check our math without invoking the power of life and death. It's really silly. 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 wrong, or at least incomplete.

OK. Thanks for making this clear. What is missing?



I think the simulated intelligence needs a simulated environment, essentially another world, in which to *be* intelligent.

But in arithmetic you have all simulation possible. The UD for example does simulate all the solutions of QM+GR, despite the "real QM+GR" emerges from all computations. So you have the simulated in their simulated environment (and we have to explain why something like GR+QM win the "universal machines battle".





And that's where your chalk board consciousness fails. It needs to be able to interact within a chalkboard world. So it's not just a question of going to a low enough level, it's also a question of going to a high enough level.

OK (as a rely to Craig's point).

Bruno



Brent
The person I was when I was 3 years old is dead. He died because
too much new information was added to his brain.
         -- Saibal Mitra

--
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