[ExI] People often think their chatbot is alive

Adrian Tymes atymes at gmail.com
Sat Jul 16 17:27:55 UTC 2022


On Sat, Jul 16, 2022 at 9:39 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> We could go deeper into this, if you'd like, but this is a bit off the
> main thing I'm asking about p-zombies and "conscious computer brain
> simulations?"
>

Agreed.


> You said: "Things like redness might be part of it, " which says to me
> you would agree that, though the one on the right can "function" the same
> (as in can tell you the strawberry is red) you would not consider it to
> have the same kind of conscious knowledge as you, who knows the physical
> definition of redness, and would answer different than the one on the
> right, when asked: "What is redness like for you?"
>

I would consider it to have functionally the same kind of conscious
knowledge until presented with evidence to the contrary.

As someone who used to design a bunch of software APIs (and using the same
idea in my current day job), I am quite aware of the concept of different
things acting in fundamentally different ways but still amounting to the
same thing as viewed from the outside.  The fact that they are different
and act in different ways is rendered utterly unimportant and uninteresting
so long as they all abide by the same API.

Language, and the other external inputs and outputs of consciousness, is
similar to an API in this regard.

Again I point to the historical context: it used to be that people of color
were regarded as "obviously" non-conscious and therefore suitable for
slavery.  When treated as slaves, they acted as slaves.  When freed but
with no education, they acted as uneducated free people.  And so on.
Logically and academically, the point was never actually refuted (as there
has been no way to absolutely prove or disprove it so far), but in practice
this has become a non-issue and the point not seriously contested save in
the most racist of enclaves (which are generally not interested in good
faith debates, or sticking strictly to not-made-up facts).


> Do you think redness can 'arise' from ones and zeros, as other
> functionalists
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/18-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function>
> evidently believe.
> I guess my question is, are you a   functionalists
> <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/18-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function>,
> as I believe most transhumanists are   ?
>

I hesitate to answer that, because there is a common trap - probably
unintentional in your case, but I've seen far too many cases where this was
intentional - where someone agrees that they are (label), and then someone
else defines (label) with negative properties that the first person never
agreed to or with but claims the first person said they are (label) so they
don't get to say they don't have those negative properties.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220716/c7c43d83/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list