On 3/13/2013 4:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



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?

But you don't experience "not being a computer" or "being a computer". You experience images, sounds, taste,... The rest is inference.



    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 apologies.



    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?

The latter are causally related to the first.

Brent

--
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