On 10/26/2012 5:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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,
I don't know what a 'purely emotional' state would be? One with affect but not
content?
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.
Isn't that what I said McCarthy warned about. If we make a robot too intelligent, e.g.
human like intelligence, it will necessarily have feelings that we should ethically take
into account.
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".
I agree. But the MGA is used in a misleading way to imply that the environment is merely
physics and isn't needed, whereas I think it actually implies that all (or a lot) of
physics is needed and must be part of the simulation. This related to Saibal's view that
the all the counterfactuals are present in the wf of the universe.
Brent
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>
--
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.
