[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[re: rock is a good implementation of any computation]
It depends what you mean by good implementation. The context of my
comment above was, *if* you believe there is a single true set of
psychophysical laws, are the laws likely to
George Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Humongous Table is just consciousness by proxy. I have nothing
against tables, mind you :-) . Let's not forget that this table (or
the interpreter that converts this table into meaning) did not occur
by accident. Either someone programmed it or it evolved
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Humongous table is simply a translation device that maps the
clock's
representation to your representation.
Ah, but the table is so complicated only because it needs to map
between the clock representation and your native representation, which
is horribly
Hans writes:
But position 1 does NOT preclude the reality of a first-person
existence, it just makes that existence a purely subjective matter,
but not only for third persons.
Once you attribute consciousness to an entity (perhaps persuaded by
its Turing test performance), then you are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
YOU (as conventionally interpreted) believe you are conscious, we
agree on that. The existence of your consciousness under the
interpretation is objective. And YOU most always (with exceptions
like unconsciousness and perhaps some meditative states) maintain
that
Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] helpfully wrote:
... it's useful to differentiate between 3 different positions:
1. Consciousness is not real--our decision to call a system
conscious or not is based only on subjective aesthetic criteria,
like cuteness (Daniel Dennett's example). The only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Despite its unpopularity, I think position 1 makes the most sense for
those of us expecting to someday build robots that are also persons.
Building robots is, after all, a third person kind of activity.
Sure, but so is making babies. Chalmers believes that there is a
8 matches
Mail list logo
