From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon Dec 20 1999 - 00:20:14 MST
Dan Fabulich <daniel.fabulich@yale.edu> Wrote:
> not that the physical world does not exist, but that we aren't Experiencing it.
Obviously the sound sight and feeling of broken glass is not broken glass and nobody
knows what broken glass is, but that doesn't mean the sensations don't exist.
>he means that the spooky qualia of the Experience of Left isn't
>real, that the Experience of Right isn't real, etc.
To repeat, for that statement to be meaningful you must explain how things
would be different if they were "real", whatever "real" means.
>suppose they [AI] don't even ACT like they have "qualia," though they
> *are* keen and intelligent problem solvers
Intelligent but acting as if they were not conscious? Sorry, I just can't imagine
such a contradictory thing.
>they're like Data on Star Trek.
I can't really blame the actor who portrays him for failing to accomplish the impossible but
Data seems just as conscious as any other character on the show. Caned responses like
"I am unemotional" are about as convincing as a 6 year old kid in a cheap robot costume
walking in a stiff jerky manner and saying in a monotone "Look at me, I am a robot".
Ken Clements Wrote:
>John, not being a Zombie, have you given up hope on being uploaded?
No not at all. Why do you ask?
>perhaps you are hoping to hold on just long enough for us to find a way
> to program weird ineffable stuff?
I don't think weird ineffable stuff is needed, just give me a Turing machine and
the correct sequence of 1's and 0's.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:08 MST