[ExI] Digital Consciousness
johnkclark at gmail.com
Mon May 6 20:25:09 UTC 2013
On Mon, May 6, 2013 Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at canonizer.com> wrote:
> A better way to think about things, than thinking of things as "inputs or
> outputs" is whether you have to interpret, whatever is representing or
> communicating (input or output) the information.
Such as when we input through our eyes light that has bounced off a man
with tears running down his cheeks to mean that the man is experiencing
sadness; or when we hear a child laughing we interpret that to mean the
child is happy.
> > Clark claimed: "we can only infer and not observe the existence of
> the currently leading consensus theories at Canonizer.com are [...]
I am not impressed.
> John, you forgot the "YET".
If you claimed to have objectively detected qualia in a third party how
could you convince me that you have done what you have claimed you have
done? But all this is really irrelevant because even without such a test
all of us, every single one of us, believes that other people are conscious
when they are not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, and they believe
this for one reason and for one reason only, they behave intelligently when
they are not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. And I'll be damned if I
understand why we're supposed to change the rules of the game if the thing
in question is a computer and not another human.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat