Re: Qualia Question
- From: curt@xxxxxxxx (Curt Welch)
- Date: 08 Jul 2005 04:32:50 GMT
Joe Legris <jalegris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Curt Welch wrote:
> > "1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>Curt Welch wrote:
> >>
> >>>"1Z" <peterdjones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Lester Zick wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>So why is it a subjective experience exactly? You don't seem to be
> >>>>>able to discriminate behavior very well. You just hypothesize
> >>>>>certain interactions and call them subjective. What's the
> >>>>>difference between subjective and objective behavior exactly in
> >>>>>mechanical terms?
> >>>>
> >>>>The difference arises in descriptive terms. There is no reason to
> >>>>insist that everything has to be explained mechanically.
> >>>
> >>>To solve AI, we MUST explain everything mechanically. If we can't
> >>>explain everything mechanically, then we can't solve AI.
> >>
> >>Indeed. But there is no a priori reason to suppose that we solve AI,
> >>and therefore no a priori reasom to inist that everything must be
> >>mechanically explicable.
> >>
> >>
> >>>This is an AI group, so the point of all this debate is to help us
> >>>build mechanical machines.
> >>
> >>The group is called comp.ai.philosophy. Philosophy has room for
> >>sceptics.
> >>In any case, wanting to do something does not make it a fact that it is
> >>possible.
> >
> >
> > Right, we don't know if everything about human behavior can be explaned
> > mechanically.
> >
> > But there's plenty of reason to insist that everything MUST be
> > explained mechanically in order to do the thing that many of us are
> > here do - understand the possibilities of AI.
> >
> > And currently, there's no proof that everything that creates human
> > behavior can't be explained mechanically.
> >
> > Those of us that want to create AI, are therefore going to make the
> > assumption that allows our goal to be reached. It's pointless to make
> > any other assumption - it would just be negative thinking to discourage
> > us from a goal which might be possible.
> >
> > So instead, we assume there is a mechanical answer to everything, and
> > look at what that answer must be if it's there.
> >
> > To solve AI, we insist on finding the mehchanical answer to all human
> > behavior, and all human experience, bucause to not find it, is to fail
> > to reach the goal.
>
> Hey Curt, you're showing signs of Zickness. Let's hear both of you
> define "mechanical" before the infection gets any worse.
Mechanical to me just means physical matter interacting with other physical
matter. I've never been able to understand what Lester uses the word
"mechaincal" for even though I've seem him talk about hundreds of times.
I believe all human behavior and our subjective experience is all a simple
result of the mechanical properties of our body. We are just a mechanical
device. If we build a device with the similar functions, it too will have
human behavior, as well as its own subjective experience of things like
aches and pains.
--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: 1Z
- Re: Qualia Question
- References:
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: angola
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: 1Z
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Curt Welch
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Lester Zick
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: 1Z
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Curt Welch
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: 1Z
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Curt Welch
- Re: Qualia Question
- From: Joe Legris
- Re: Qualia Question
- Prev by Date: Re: Qualia Question
- Next by Date: Re: Qualia Question
- Previous by thread: Re: Qualia Question
- Next by thread: Re: Qualia Question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|