P.P.S. Do you think you could get a robot to provide information it "didn't want" to provide (whatever you think that means) by waterboarding it?
-- Russ On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote: > P.S. Nick, Do you believe that robots are capable of feeling frustrated and > irritated? > > -- Russ > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]>wrote: > >> See below. >> >> -- Russ Abbott >> _____________________________________________ >> Professor, Computer Science >> California State University, Los Angeles >> Cell phone: 310-621-3805 >> o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> See comments in Navy Blue below. >>> >>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>> Clark University ([email protected]) >>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >>> *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>> Coffee Group <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* 6/15/2009 8:49:41 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] (Subjective) experience >>> >>> When "experience" is used as a verb, we don't add the word "subjective." >>> We add it when "experience" is used as a noun to refer to first person >>> experience. The broader word "experience" isn't that precise. >>> >>> *How could an experience not be the experience from the point of view >>> of an agent? I dont see what is being specified by the addition of >>> "subjective". * >>> >>> Didn't I already respond to that? No point in doing it again. >> >>> * >>> * >>> But more to the point I'm still confused what you mean bv "I don't deny >>> that I, or the cat, or even the robot, experience (when all three obey the >>> rules of "experiencing"). What rules are you talking about? >>> >>> *The implicit rules anybody applies before they use a sentence like, >>> "the cat was aware of the mouse." What would we have to see before we >>> would. Sadly, there hasnt been much incentive to formalize those rules >>> since we talk of experiene as an event somwhere rather than as a >>> relationship between an agent and an event. * >>> >>> I don't believe I operate according to rules. So again, I don't know what >> rules you are talking about. But more importantly, I'm more interested in a >> sentence like "I was aware of the mouse." You keep changing the subject to >> an observation of something else. The issue is what does it mean to say that >> I am having an experience, e.g., "I feel nauseous." Does it mean anything to >> you? I still don't know. Also, I still don't know whether you would >> understand a robot that said "I feel nauseous" to mean the same sort of >> thing that you mean by that sentence. >> >>> >>> >>> Furthermore, I don't agree that robots have the same sort of first person >>> experience that we and cats do. Is that really your position, that robots >>> "experience" the world the same way you do? If so, doesn't it follow that we >>> should be kind to robots in the same way we should be kind to people and >>> cats, that robots deserve humane treatment, etc.? >>> >>> *I was interested to see where you would draw the line. Some would draw >>> it between the cat and the human. What I can't understand is what >>> committment -- other than a metaphysical one -- would lead one to draw it >>> anywhere in the absense of some empirical standard for what constitutes the >>> act of experiencing. * >>> >>> >> You are not answering the question. If a robot feeling nauseous means to >> you the same thing as a human feeling nauseous, do you grant it the same >> sorts of "rights" that we grant each other. I'd like to know your answer. >> For example, would it be torture to waterboard a robot? >> >> >>> >>> -- Russ Abbott >>> >>> *Thanks for hanging in, here, Russ. This is interesting. * >>> >>> I'm beginning to feel irritated. It seems to me you aren't engaging in an >> honest dialog since you aren't responding to the questions I asked. I took >> some time to construct questions that would help me understand your >> position. But if you won't answer them I'm wasting my time, which I find >> frustrating, not interesting. >> >>> ** >>> ** >>> >>> *Nick * >>> >>> _____________________________________________ >>> Professor, Computer Science >>> California State University, Los Angeles >>> Cell phone: 310-621-3805 >>> o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Russ, >>>> >>>> I don't think I am bickering or splitting hairs; but then, people who >>>> are, never do. >>>> >>>> To put yourself in my frame of mind on these issues, start by saying >>>> what you can say about what others "see". I see that my cat sees the mouse >>>> in the corner of the room. >>>> >>>> Anything I can say of the cat, I can say of myself.; anything I cannot >>>> say of the cat, I cannot say of myself.... well, except for the fur part. >>>> >>>> >>>> If all experience is subjective, then we probably don't need the extra >>>> word, do we? I don't deny that I, or the cat, or even the robot, >>>> experience >>>> (when all three obey the rules of "experiencing"). I just don't see what >>>> is gained by adding the word "subjective" except a very confusing and >>>> inconsistent metaphysics. >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> Nicholas S. Thompson >>>> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, >>>> Clark University ([email protected]) >>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/<http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> *From:* Russ Abbott <[email protected]> >>>> *To: *[email protected];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity >>>> Coffee Group <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* 6/15/2009 7:38:20 PM >>>> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] The ghost in the machine (was 'quick question') >>>> >>>> Nick, >>>> >>>> In one of the previous messages, you said, "I don't know about you, but >>>> I experience a world." Experiencing a world is a mark of subjective >>>> experience. Robots don't experience; they have sensors that measure things >>>> and report those measures, from which the robot may draw conclusions. >>>> There >>>> is a difference. I don't understand how you can deny that difference. >>>> >>>> After all, what do you mean by "experience the world" other than >>>> subjective experience? Is this just a matter of terminological bickering? >>>> If >>>> you are willing to say that you experience the world, then by my >>>> understanding of "experience" you have subjective experience. >>>> >>>> -- Russ Abbott >>>> _____________________________________________ >>>> Professor, Computer Science >>>> California State University, Los Angeles >>>> Cell phone: 310-621-3805 >>>> o Check out my blog at http://bluecatblog.wordpress.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ============================================================ >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >>>> >>> >>> >> >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
