On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 11:05:30 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 9:13:40 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote: 
>>> > Maybe if there was a computer which was not specifically designed to 
>>> deceive 
>>> > our senses... which would mean that it was one which occurred 
>>> naturally and 
>>> > did not include anything which was ever designed or programmed by a 
>>> human 
>>> > being. 
>>> Which contradicts your original claim that we can just "sense" that 
>>> other people are conscious without any logical analysis. 
>> No because we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious 
>> without any logical analysis. That's why behaving 'like a robot' or a 
>> machine is synonymous with mindless repetitive action. Just because we can 
>> make an optical illusion which fools our eye into seeing three dimensional 
>> perspective in a 2D painting doesn't mean that we can't authentically tell 
>> when something natural is 3D.
> You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how do 
> you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots? 

Because I live in 2013 AD, where I now need to reboot my office telephone 
if I want the headset to work. It's pretty easy to tell when something is a 
piece of digital technology built by human beings, because it is constantly 
breaking. Besides that though, you can tell because of the uncanny valley 
feeling. Even when a simulation of a person is good enough to elicit a 
positive response beyond the uncanny valley, it doesn't mean that we are 
completely fooled by it, even if we report that we are.

If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making decisions 
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without 
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly trust 
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of 
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a 
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory capabilities 
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction. 

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically, 
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable 
experience of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic 
- but so far we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into 
a science fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and 
would not every be a such thing as experience.



> You're going by their behaviour. 
> -- Stathis Papaioannou
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to