From: Randall R Randall (rrandall6@juno.com)
Date: Sat Jul 18 1998 - 09:47:37 MDT
--
On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 21:34:36 -0700 (PDT) John K Clark <johnkc@well.com>
writes:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>On Fri, 17 Jul 1998 rrandall6@juno.com (Randall R Randall) Wrote:
> >No, closer to say that the "Randall Test" *includes* the Turing
Test,
> >as it now stands.
>
>If the Turing Test is unsound so is the Randall Test because that is its
>foundation.
The Turing Test is possibly only incomplete.
> >The fact that a tape recorder can make those sounds, however,
does
> >not mean that the same processes [consciousness] are going on
in the
> >tape recorder, since it is a different sort of machine.
>
>But in the real world that's not why people think a tape recorder is
>unintelligent and unconscious. Most people don't have the slightest idea
of
>how a tape recorder works, much less the human brain, they don't believe
a
>tape recorder is conscious is because it doesn't act that way, in other
words
>they use the Turing Test.
Because they have nothing better, yes. However,
wouldn't you agree that knowing how a tape recorder
works is a much surer route to knowing whether it is
conscious? IOW, the Turing Test sorta works for this
purpose, but it is not the best way to tell.
> >Since we know, from personal experience, that human brains
*can* be
> >conscious, and we know that other human brains do cause
similar
> >sounds to ours, we can assume that they are conscious, and
begin our
> >study of consciousness with that.
>
>I agree its a reasonable assumption that other people who act
intelligently
>are conscious, its a reasonable assumption that an intelligent robot is
>conscious too, but a reasonable assumption is not the same as a
>proof.
Nope, but we can base proofs of other things on
reasonable assumptions and evidence.
> >>Me:
> >>Where is the spatial location of green, or fast, or the number
> >>eleven?
>
> >*Certain* locations contain matter with attributes such as
>these.
>
>Exactly. Right now there is only one location that contains matter with
the
>John Clark attribute, but that might not always be true.
I would say that while consciousness in general is
an attribute, a particular consciousness is more
complex than that.
> >>Me:
> >>That's remembering the past not detecting time,
>
> >They are the same thing.
>
>No, one is subjective and the other objective.
How do you know? Have you ever objectively
measured time?
> >>Without senses just how would you detect that I stopped
>your brain >>and then restarted it?
>
> >I don't know that I could.
>
>Then you couldn't detect time.
Without the proper instruments, I can't tell
the elements that some indeterminate
block of matter is made of. Does that mean
that I cannot detect matter?
I may not be able to detect *some*
features of time, but that it exists, I can.
--digsig
Wolfkin.
5CaaHx/ncmWI7mi94lMRbZ5naWfoiAiWyG37UUfee/P
JhDqmp8fo/vv0+nTjnCSCZiGyvX2lepvs9shJRJP
4h+6UuyAc18Q/wFyynmtFGJFmANjnXlpFh1Dtt32j
wolfkin@flatoday.infi.net | ICQ: 3043097
E-Gold Acct: 100678 @ www.e-gold.com
On a visible but distant shore a new image of man,
The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.
| Johnny Clegg
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:22 MST