On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:14:22 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>  On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>  On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>> Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted 
>> scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every 
>> author uses the term for a content that fits her/his theoretical stance. 
>> Me, too. 
>> Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not 
>> human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just 
>> Just *any* response?  Doesn't the response have to be something we can 
>> identify as intelligent or purposeful?
>>  By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the 
>> Physical World into the inventory. 
>> So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that 
>> exhibits intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is 
>> aware/conscious?
> What if you wanted to build a Mars Rover that was completely unconscious, 
> but still followed a sophisticated set of instructions. Would that be 
> impossible? If the Mars Rover detects enough different kinds of compounds 
> in the Martian atmosphere, is there no way of preventing it from developing 
> a sense of smell?
> To exhibit intelligence the Rover would have to do more than "follow 
> instructions", it would have to learn from experience, act and plan through 
> simulation and prediction.

Would you say that it is impossible to build a machine which learns and 
plans without it developing perception and qualia automatically? Could any 
set of instructions suppress this development? If qualia can appear 
anywhere that learning and planning behaviors can be inferred, does that 
mean that there are also be programs or processes which must be protected 
from qualitative contamination or leakage?


>   If it did exhibit intelligence like that, I'd grant it 'consciousness', 
> whatever that means.  

Why would you grant that it has a quality which you claim not to understand?


> If it learns and acts based on chemical types I'd grant it has a sense of 
> smell. 

Would the sense of smell be like our sense of smell automatically, or could 
its sense of smell be analogous to our sense of touch, or intuition, or 
sense of humor? Why have any of them? What does a sense of smell add to 
your understanding of how chemical detection works? If there were no such 
thing as smell, could anything even remotely resembling olfactory qualia be 
justified quantitatively?

Unless you can explain exactly why you grant a machine qualities that you 
claim not to understand and why you grant a superfluous aesthetic dimension 
to simple stochastic predictive logic, I will consider the perspective that 
you offer as lacking any serious scientific justification. 

> To say it's "conscious" is just a way of modeling how it learns and acts 
> that we can relate to (what Dennett calls "the intentional stance").

If that were true, then nobody should mind if they spend the rest of their 
life under comatose-level anesthetic while we replace their brain with a 
device that models how it learns in the same way that you once did. 

It's not true though. There is an important difference between feeling and 
doing, between being awake and having your body walk around. Can you really 
not see that? Can you really not see why a machine that acts like we expect 
a person to act doesn't have to mean that the machine's abilities 
automatically conjure feeling, seeing, smelling, etc out of thin air?



> 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to