[ExI] Do digital computers feel?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Mon., 6 Feb. 2017 at 11:05 pm, Colin Hales <col.hales at gmail.com> wrote:

> $0.02
>
> "But I'm only asking at this point about *observable behaviour*, ignoring
> qualia completely. It is my contention that if we do this the qualia will
> emerge automatically and it is your contention that they won't. But in
> order to figure out who is right you have to consider the experiment as I
> have proposed it; you can't assume your conclusion in the premises."
>
> There are two different tests of a hypothesis that (e.g. Stathis position)
> H1= "There is no brain physics that is essential for qualia"
>
> ====================
> TEST 1)
> Assume it's true, pay no regard to any brain physics. Compute models of
> the brain. Compare/contrast behaviour of a test system artificial brain
> with natural brain. Draw conclusions about H1.
>
> TEST 2)
> Assume it's false. Select particular physics that might be held
> accountable for qualia. Replicate the targetted physics.Compare/contrast
> behaviour of
>
> a test system artificial brain with natural brain
> a test system artificial brain with the TEST 1 equivalent.
>
> Draw conclusions about H1.
> ====================
> For seventy five years we have thrown out the physics and done 100% TEST
> 1). To throw that physics out all you have to do is use a computer. Nobody
> in the entire history of science has ever made this stupid oversight before
> and it's a mistake that could only be made ONCE: when computers were
> invented.
>
> I can think of a perfect candidate for test 2). It's right there in front
> of everyone. The proof? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2) combined in a proper science
> activity. But why should my favorite be right? Got some other physics you
> think does it .... so what!? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2). Same story. My
> particular choice for essential physics is irrelevant.
>
> It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about qualia origins. Magical
> emergentism or denialism or quantum squiggly-doodahs. If you confine
> yourself to TEST 1 forever you are screwed. Until we start getting testing
> right and do fully formed actual empirical science the science is malformed
> and this whole argument is likewise screwed.
>
> This science is embrarassingly and egregiously broken.
>

I don't understand your objection to the experiment. Are you saying that it
is possible to replicate the behaviour of the brain without regard to the
physics, but that from this no conclusion can be reached about the qualia?
Or are you saying that it isn't possible to replicate the behaviour of the
brain without using the original brain physics?

> --
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170206/4b1f4b66/attachment.html>