From: Brent Allsop (allsop@fc.hp.com)
Date: Mon Nov 29 1999 - 09:30:22 MST
Rob Harris <rob@hbinternet.co.uk> responded with:
> Why would the system need to "perceive" the color to stop at the
> light? A light sensor WOULD do fine.
I think this is precicely right! Color detecting machines are
far more aware, intelligent and functional than we are about color.
Not only can such machines resolve much better but obviosly they can
be set up to produce complex behaviors based on colors we can't even
see (let alone remember) the difference between.
The kicker difference is: when you ask a human what "red" is
like, he honestly tries to express the very real and phenomenal
sensation. Any abstract machine that represented color with mere
abstract representations rather than a real phenomenal qualia, though
it could be programmed such that it seemed to respond much more
"humanly" than a human could, its descriptions of what red was like
would be a blatent lie since abstract representations of knowledge and
awareness information aren't phenomenal or conscious at all.
If a machine really had been given the proper machinery we
have to produce, say, a salty qualia, it could then honestly respond
with something like: "Oh THAT'S what salt tastes like!". But if it
was representing the sodium chloride with abstruct numbers or
something, though it could easily act even more convincing, it would
still be blatently lieing about that fact that it could feel walt a
salt quale was like. And if we really knew what "salty" was and
precicely what machinery really produced it, and could examine the
machine's representations objectively looking for such. Only then
could we know if it was lying or not.
Brent Allsop
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:53 MST