Hi Matt, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Matt Mahoney <mattmahone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Colin, yes you answered my questions about consciousness. To summarize, by > consciousness you mean qualia, that which makes you different than a > philosophical zombie. Since a zombie is by definition behaviorally > identical to a human, there is no test for consciousness and no capability > that depends on it. You could simply declare that neurons are conscious and > transistors are not, even if they implement identical functions, and nobody > could argue otherwise. > I've read through your post, and thought at length, trying to see how it might be me that is confused, and how you might be confused about that. If you think I am confused, then there are hundreds of thousands of scientists that are just as confused in exactly the same way. None of them accept anything as true by definition, without empirical proof and none of them will accept mere 'definition' (like the zombie is merely defined) when it comes the the scientific account of natural phenomena. Computer science is 100% theoretical (artificial as in 'mobile phones don't grow on trees') and I think possible you haven't internalised that fact of the science and its implication. This can happen when you spend an entire career dealing with something that is entirely theoretical/artificial. On reflection is most likely that the fundamental culprits are 1) You are confusing a lack of literal 'observation' of consciousness with a lack of scientific evidence of consciousness. 2) Because of your lodgement in an entirely theoretical/artificial knowledge domain where definition is allowed where elsewhere it is not, you used 1) to give yourself latitude to 'define your way' into accepting a hypothesis (substrate independence') is true where elsewhere its conclusive proof would require empirical evidence acquired by critically testing for falsehood and failing. (e)LEFT facilitates that science. (e) RIGHT on its own can't do it. I think that might account for your claim I am confused. To prove I am confused requires the full science framework I propose. And I am quite happy to be proved confused in that way and will change my mind, then and only then, because I have done the science correctly. So I guess I'll just continue to deliver the chip design into (e)LEFT, carefully comparing and contrasting it with (e)RIGHT. A chip that has a literal EEG like a natural brain, and that is not a digital or analog computer and uses no model of a brain, and has no software. ... just like the natural brain... ... and then hope that somehow it reaches a target that changes things. It is a source of deep embarrassment and frustration that I find I have to defend a change to repair a faulty science discipline established by mere accidental omission (by nobody), and that is unique in all science. But that's where I am. That's where we all are. Colin ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M0ceb1ae751b4485c2c128ebf Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
