On 10/1/2013 9:56 PM, Pierz wrote:
Yes, I understand that to be Chalmer's main point. Although, if the qualia can be
different, it does present issues - how much and in what way can it vary?
Yes, that's a question that interests me because I want to be able to build intelligent
machines and so I need to know what qualia they will have, if any. I think it will depend
on their sensors and on their values/goals. If I build a very intelligent Mars Rover,
capable of learning and reasoning, with a goal of discovering whether there was once life
on Mars; then I expect it will experience pleasure in finding evidence regarding this.
But no matter how smart I make it, it won't experience lust.
I'm curious what the literature has to say about that. And if functionalism means
reproducing more than the mere functional output of a system, if it potentially means
replication down to the elementary particles and possibly their quantum entanglements,
then duplication becomes impossible, not merely technically but in principle. That seems
against the whole point of functionalism - as the idea of "function" is reduced to
something almost meaningless.
I think functionalism must be confined to the classical functions, discounting the quantum
level effects. But it must include some behavior that is almost entirely internal - e.g.
planning, imagining. Excluding quantum entanglements isn't arbitrary; there cannot have
been any evolution of goals and values based on quantum entanglement (beyond the
statistical effects that produce decoherence and quasi-classical behavior).
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.