James, Frank Jackson (in "Epiphenomenal Qualia") defined qualia as "...certain features of the bodily sensations especially, but also of certain perceptual experiences, which no amount of purely physical information includes.. :-)
If it walks like a human, talks like a human, then for all those
aspects it is a human If it feels like a human and if Frank is correct :-) then the system may, under certain circumstances, want to modify given goals based on preferences that could not be found in its memory (nor in CPU registers etc.). So, with some assumptions, we might be able to write some code for the feelPainTest procedure, but no idea for the actual feelPain procedure. Jiri On 6/11/07, James Ratcliff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two different responses to this type of arguement. Once you "simulate" something to the fact that we cant tell the difference between it in any way, then it IS that something for most all intents and purposes as far as the tests you have go. If it walks like a human, talks like a human, then for all those aspects it is a human. Second, to say it CANNOT be programmed, you must define IT much more closely. For cutaneous pain and humans, it appears to me that we have pain sensors, so if we are being pricked on the arm, the nerves there send the message to the brain, and the brain reacts to it there. We an recreate this fairly easily using VNA with some robotic touch sensors, and saying that "past this threshhold" it becomes "painful" and can be damaging, and we will send a message to the CPU. If there is nothing "magical" about the pain sensation, then there is no reason we cant recreate it. James Ratcliff
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
