On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:38:24 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 3/13/2013 3:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:00:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/13/2013 3:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> > The computer as a whole is >> > >not a computer at all, it is an animal, a being. In reality, it only >> looks >> > >like a computer on the lower levels because it is too distant from our >> > >personal experience to relate to personally. >> >> At last Craig admits that a computer can be conscious - but only by not >> really being a >> computer at some magic level where it becomes an animal. >> > > No, you misunderstand. Stathis used computer as a metaphor here for a > person, saying that if any part of the person acts like a machine then > every part of the person ant the person as a whole must be a machine. I was > correcting him saying that in fact a person is an animal through and > through, and it only looks like a machine on the lowest levels because of > perceptual relativism. A machine cannot ever be human, > > > So you say. > > but we can be fooled. > > > How do you're not already fooled; that what you take to be humans beings > really are computers - including yourself? >
Because experience by definition cannot be simulated. You may be experiencing something other than what you think you are experiencing, but the fact that you experience is not something that you can doubt. How would you know that your doubt were real? > > A human can act like a machine for a while but it isn't healthy. > > Please avoid putting words in my mouth - > > > The above was a direct quote extracted from your email. > It was taken out of context so that it appeared to mean the opposite of what I was trying to say. > > > my position is that computers executed on inorganic material are not > likely to ever be conscious. They can progress on the X axis that I laid > out above, but not the Y axis. > > >> >> > It's not a matter of how it >> > >could possibly happen, it is a matter of how could anyone think that >> it >> > >isn't happening. You experience it yourself directly in every moment. >> >> No you don't, or at least I don't. I experience many things but I don't >> experience being >> determined or not-determined. >> > > If you get food when you are hungry, then you experience yourself being > determined. > > > And what if I don't get food because I want to be slimmer. Is that *not* > determined? > It depends on whether you want to be slimmer more because it is something that you decided for yourself or more because of social conditioning, peer pressure, etc. There are different degrees to which our behavior is influenced externally. > > If you debate online and decide what you say based on your own thoughts > rather than the content of neurochemical sites in your brain, then you > experience being not-determined. > > > Are you claiming "my own thoughts" are distinct from the neurochemistry of > my brain? > Is the plot of a TV show distinct from the pixels on your TV screen? Craig > > Brent > The first principle of science is don't fool yourself - and you > are the easiest person to fool. > --- Richard Feynman > > -- 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.
