On Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:58:30 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> > A lot of what I am always talking about is in there...computers don't
> > understand produce because they have no aesthetic sensibility. A
> > description of a function is not the same thing as participating in an
> > experience.
> This is effectively a test for consciousness: if the entity can
> perform the type of task you postulate requires aesthetic sensibility,
> it must have aesthetic sensibility.
Not at all. That's exactly the opposite of what I am saying. The failure of
digital mechanism to interface with aesthetic presence is not testable
unless you yourself become a digital mechanism. There can never be a test
of aesthetic sensibility because testing is by definition anesthetic. To
test is to measure into a system of universal representation. Measurement
is the removal of presence for the purpose of distribution as symbol. I can
draw a picture of a robot correctly identifying a vegetable, but that
doesn't mean that the drawing of the robot is doing anything. I can make a
movie of the robot cartoon, or a sculpture, or an animated sculpture that
has a sensor for iodine or magnesium which can be correlated to a higher
probability of a particular vegetable, but that doesn't change anything at
all. There is still no robot except in our experience and our expectations
of its experience. The robot is not even a zombie, it is a puppet playing
back recordings of our thoughts in a clever way.
> Stathis Papaioannou
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.