On 2/6/2013 7:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

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.
That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.

Hi Stathis,

The simulation of our 'self' that our brain generates *is* good enough to fool oneself! I speculate that schizophrenia and autism are caused by failures of the self-simulation system... The former is a failure where multiple self-simulations are generated and no stability on their convergent occurs and the latter is where the self-simulation fails altogether. Mind version of autism, such as Aspergers syndrome are where bad simulations occur and/or the self-simulation fails to update properly.

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.
That's the situation that is assumed in the idea of a philosophical
zombie: you interact with the being face to face. If at the end of
several days' interaction (or however long you think you need) you are
completely convinced that it is conscious, does that mean it is
conscious?

As I see things, the only coherent concept of a zombie is what we see in the autistic case. Such is 'conscious' with no self-image/self-awareness, thus it has no ability to report on its 1p content.


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 could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.



How about that! Does this not tell us that we must start, in our musing about existence with the postulate that something exists?

--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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