[ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious?

[Jason Resch]

If you agree with the concept of the Church-Turing Thesis, then you should
know that "wave computation" cannot be any more capable than the "discrete
logic gate" computation we use in CPUs. All known forms of computation are
exactly equivalent in what they can compute. If it can be computed by one
type, it can be computed by all types. If it can't be computed by one type,
it can't be computed by any type.

This discovery has major implications in the philosophy of mind, especially
if one rejects the possibility of zombies. It leads directly to multiple
realizability, and substrate independence, as Turing noted 72 years ago:

“The fact that Babbage's Analytical Engine was to be entirely mechanical
will help us rid ourselves of a superstition. Importance is often attached
to the fact that modern digital computers are electrical, and the nervous
system is also electrical. Since Babbage's machine was not electrical, and
since all digital computers are in a sense equivalent, we see that this use
of electricity cannot be of theoretical importance. [...] If we wish to
find such similarities we should look rather for mathematical analogies of
function.”
-- Alan Turing in Computing Machinery and Intelligence
<https://heidelberg.instructure.com/courses/6068/files/190841/download?download_frd=1>
(1950)


Further, if you reject the plausibility of absent, fading, or dancing
qualia, then equivalent computations (regardless of substrate) must be
equivalently aware and conscious. To believe otherwise, is to believe your
color qualia could start inverting every other second without you being
able to comment on it or in any way "notice" that it was happening. You
wouldn't be caught off guard, you wouldn't suddenly pause to notice, you
wouldn't alert anyone to your condition. This should tell you that behavior
and the underlying functions that can drive behavior, must be directly tied
to conscious experience in a very direct way.

Jason

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 12:11 PM Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> OK, let me see if I am understanding this correctly.  consider this image:
> [image: 3_robots_tiny.png]
>
> I would argue that all 3 of these systems are "turing complete", and that
> they can all tell you the strawberry is 'red'.
> I agree with you on this.
> Which brings us to a different point that they would all answer the
> question: "What is redness like for you?" differently.
> First: "My redness is like your redness."
> Second: "My redness is like your greenness."
> Third: "I represent knowledge of red things with an abstract word like
> "red", I need a definition to know what that means."
>
> You are focusing on the turing completeness, which I agree with, I'm just
> focusing on something different.
>
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 11:00 AM Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 11:23 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Surely the type of wave computation being done in the brain is far more
>>> capable than the discrete logic gates we use in CPUs.
>>>
>>>
>> This comment above suggests to me that you perhaps haven't come to terms
>> with the full implications of the Church-Turing Thesis
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis> or the
>> stronger Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing%E2%80%93Deutsch_principle>
>> .
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220503/4cb90858/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3_robots_tiny.png
Type: image/png
Size: 26214 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220503/4cb90858/attachment.png>