Re: consciousness
- From: "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:37:57 -0400
"JGCASEY" <jgkjcasey@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1175451938.228621.266350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Apr 1, 8:23 am, Don Geddis <d...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Meanwhile, all the other scientific evidence we have (aside,
perhaps, from introspective) suggests that there is nothing
more special about consciousness than there is about, say,
software running on computers.
Yet we can be as sure about being conscious as we can be sure
about anything and there is nothing about software running on
computers that would predict or require subjective experiences.
In some sense I agree with you. Descartes "I think therefore
I am" is close to both the beginning -- and the end -- of
certain knowledge that it is possible to have. (I suppose
perhaps some simple mathematics might be in there too.)
That said, you go too far to say that "nothing" about software
would lead one to predict subjective experiences. It certainly
helps that we have our own, so we can look for them in other
entities. But at some point, if you built an AI robot that
functions successfully in this world, it clearly has sensory
perceptions, and a self-model, and an awareness of travelling
through time, and the ability to discuss all of these
linguistically.
Regardless of whether you think such a robot "really" has
qualia/consciousness or not, surely you can imagine that the
robot itself would begin to make some assertions on the topic.
You might think it's mistaken, that whatever it has is
different from whatever you have.
But do you really think the subject would never come up?
That this cold unfeeling unthinking deterministic machine
wouldn't have some opinion on this interesting topic, that
all the humans seem to talk about all the time? What do you
think the ("zombie") robot's opinion would be?
If it is possible to build a machine that is functionally
equivalent to us I guess it would have the same diverse
opinions that we have on the subject. Some of them would
think it was "just" software, others might ask in what way
it is "just" software. Although if we ever understand
ourselves to the extent we could build such machines I
suspect we would have the answer.
Or maybe a super machine might claim to have the answer
and just say, "What are you talking about, seeing blue is
just a behaviour you idiot". And yet have no ability to
explain it in a way that makes it clear to lesser mortals.
Of course, it wouldn't be such a "super machine" if that is all it could say
about the issue, no matter how correct it was that the listener was an
idiot. And lord knows that you can't swing a dead cognitivist around here
without hitting an idiot.
But I know what you were really trying to say, John, and the answer is still
"No, you may not touch my wiener." And I prefer to be thought of as a
"regular guy," not the super being of your fantasies.
With Affection (in a Platonic way, of course),
Glen
--
JC
.
- References:
- Re: consciousness
- From: Don Geddis
- Re: consciousness
- From: JGCASEY
- Re: consciousness
- From: Don Geddis
- Re: consciousness
- From: JGCASEY
- Re: consciousness
- Prev by Date: Re: consciousness
- Next by Date: Re: Turing Machines and Minds (Was: The Demise of Computationalism?)
- Previous by thread: Re: consciousness
- Next by thread: Re: consciousness
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
