On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 7:18:51 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> 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. 

Fooling me is meaningless. "I think that you think therefore you are" fails 
to account for the subjective thinker in the first place. If someone kills 
you, but they then find a nifty way to use your cadaver as a 
ventriloquist's dummy, does it matter if it fools someone into thinking 
that you are still alive?

> > 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? 

Of course not.  If you watched every Elvis movie and became convinced that 
he is still alive, does that mean he is alive?

> > 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. 

Exactly. That's why sensory-motor presence is the only irreducible reality 
and logic is only one reflected aspect of it. Logic cannot conjure a 
sensory experience in something which is incapable of participating in that 
experience directly and logic cannot change anything unless there is a 
sensory-motor participant who is actually performing the change.


> -- 
> 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