Yeah I looked a bit on the wiki about the "qualia" but was unable to find anything concrete enough to comment on, seems to be some magical fluffery. "bodily sensations" = input from touch stimuli "perceptual experiences" = input information (data) both of these we have and can process...
the last bit seems unconnected to the "which no amount of purely physical information includes" This contradicts the above two, which are purely physical information, So what is that magical bit there, and what does it do? If we cant see it or what it does, and it doesnt appear to have any effect on anythign, I dont see how or why we can include it. Looking for some more on Frank Jackson I see: Tell me everything physical there is to tell about what is going on in a living brain, the kind of states, their functional role, their relation to what goes on at other times and in other brains, and so on and so forth, and be I as clever as can be in fitting it all together, you wont have told me about the hurtfulness of pains, the itchiness of itches, pangs of jealousy, or about the characteristic experience of tasting a lemon, smelling a rose, hearing a loud noise or seeing the sky. And there is somethign to be said about the "experiencing" of an event, and humans may uniquely experience any event as more than raw input data. Many of these are not something a bot will have, or may need to have anytime soon, such as tasting, smelling, or smelling, but sight will be a quick and important one. When we look at a sky and say the sunset is beautiful it makes us feel a certain way as we experience it, and not just any sunset will do. So first a bot would have to know what sunsets it "enjoys" and then what feelings and thoughts are aroused by that particular sunset. The first part can be done computationaly by random numbers and color preferences etc, but the second is harder, and a bot may get a simple happiness boost when seeing a pretty sunset or a blooming flower. Or their preferences may turn to vastly different things than humans and may like plain brown rocks. They will expereince these things differently, and maybe of less force than us, but still can have appropriate reactions to this type of input. James Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 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/?&; _______________________________________ James Ratcliff - http://falazar.com Looking for something... --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. ----- 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
