On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 8:08:01 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>> On 10 October 2013 09:47, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
>> > wrote:
>>> It's not that computers can't do what humans do, it's that they can't 
>>> experience anything. Mozart could dig a hole as well as compose music, but 
>>> that doesn't mean that a backhoe with a player piano on it is Mozart. It's 
>>> a much deeper problem with how machines are conceptualized that has nothing 
>>> at all to do with humans.
>> So you think "strong AI" is wrong. OK. But why can't computers experience 
>> anything, in principle, given that people can, and assuming people are 
>> complicated machines?
> I think Craig would say he does think computers (and many/all other 
> things) do experience something,

You're half right. I would say:

1. All experiences correspond to some natural thing.
2. Not all things are natural things. Bugs Bunny has no independent 
experience, and neither does Pinocchio. 
3. Computers are made of natural things but, like all machines, are 
ultimately assembled unnaturally.
4. The natural things that machines are made of would have to be very low 
level, i.e., not gears but the molecules that make up the gears.

Unless a machine used living organisms, molecules would probably be the 
only natural things which an experience would be associated with. They 
don't know that they are part of a machine, but there is probably an 
experience that corresponds to thermodynamic and electromagnetic 
conditions. Experiences on that level may not be proprietary to any 
particular molecule - it could be very exotic, who knows. Maybe every atom 
of the same structure represents the same kind of experience on some 
radically different time scale from ours. 

It's not really important - the main thing is to see how there is no 
substitute for experience and a machine which is assembled from unrelated 
parts has no experience and cannot gain new experience in an alien context.

I think that a machine (or any inanimate object or symbol) can also serve 
as a vehicle for synchronicity. That's a completely different thing because 
it is the super-personal, holistic end of the sensible spectrum, not the 
sub-personal, granular end. The creepiness of a ventriloquist dummy is in 
our imagination, but that too is 'real' in an absolute sense. If your life 
takes you on a path which tempts you to believe that machines are 
conscious, then the super-personal lensing of your life will stack the deck 
just enough to let you jump to those conclusions. It's what we would call 
supernatural or coincidental, depending on which lens we use to define 
it..  http://s33light.org/post/62173912616  (Don't you want to have a body?)

> just that it is necessarily different from what we experience. The reason 
> for this has something to do with our history as biological organisms 
> (according to his theory).

Right, although not necessarily just biological history, it could be 
chemical too. We may have branched off from anything that could be made 
into a useful machine (servant to alien agendas) long before life on Earth.


> Jason 

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