On 12 Oct 2013, at 22:47, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:



On Sunday, 13 October 2013, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 12 Oct 2013, at 09:49, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Because the article is consistent with my view that there is a fundamental difference between quantitative tasks and aesthetic awareness. If there were no difference, then I would expect that the problems that supermarket computers would have would not be related to its unconsciousness, but to unreliability or even willfulness developing. Why isn't the story "Automated cashiers have begun throwing temper tantrums at some locations which are contagious to certain smart phones that now become upset in sympathy...we had anticipated this, but not so soon, yadda yadda"? I think it's pretty clear why. For the same reason that all machines will always fall short of authentic personality and sensitivity.

So you would just say that computers lack authentic personality and sensitivity, no matter what they did.

Beyond question, yes. I wouldn't just say it, I would bet my life on it, because I understand it completely.

Do you believe that computers can perform any task a human can perform? If not, what is an example of a relatively simple task that a computer could never perform?

I thought Craig just made clear that computers might performs as well as humans, and that even in that case, he will not attribute sense and aesthetic to them. This was already clear with my sun-in-law (who got an artificial brain, and who can't enjoy a good meal at his restaurant).

He call them puppets, but he believes in philosophical zombies.

He is coherent, but invalid in his debunking of comp. He debunks only the 19th century conception of machines (controllable physical beings).

Craig is neither clear

I can accept that.


nor coherent.

I was just saying that he was coherent in his belief in some primary nature, and his disbelief in computationalism.




For example, he suggests above that the inadequacies of supermarket computers are due to their unconsciousness, which implies that there are some things an unconscious entity cannot do, and therefore there cannot be philosophical zombies. However, he says (I think - he is not clear) there is no test to tell the computers apart from the humans. This is inconsistent.

OK. I think he is incoherent by opportunism. he want to use result in the literature, but those result concerns behavior. There he is indeed often incoherent, as you illustrate well.

You are confronted with the task of explaining to someone incoherent that he is incoherent: a very difficult if not impossible task. Incoherent people can answer all questions very easily. Eventually he will (and already has) just refer to its own understanding. Like "I know that ...", etc.

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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