On 10/2/2013 2:06 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent:
*/"/*/But no matter how smart I make it, it won't experience lust."/
/
/
1. "lust" is not the universal criterion that makes us human, it is only one of our
humanly circumscribed paraphernalia we apply in HUMAN thinking and HUMAN complexity with
HUMAN language.
I don't think so. I think it's a qualia experienced by sexually reproducing species. My
dog seems to experience it when in the presence of a receptive female.
But of course I picked lust, just because it's not something a robot, that doesn't
reproduce sexually, and might not reproduce at all, would need to have.
Can you apply a similar criterion for the robot in 'it's' characteristics?
I think that the robot could feel some qualia analogous to humans, e.g. frustration, fear,
too cold, too hot, tired,...
2. A N D if _YOU _ cannot make it 'smarter', is that a general statement?
?? I didn't state that I cannot make it smarter.
Brent
John M
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:15 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 10/1/2013 9:56 PM, Pierz wrote:
Yes, I understand that to be Chalmer's main point. Although, if the
qualia can
be different, it does present issues - how much and in what way can it
vary?
Yes, that's a question that interests me because I want to be able to build
intelligent machines and so I need to know what qualia they will have, if
any. I
think it will depend on their sensors and on their values/goals. If I
build a very
intelligent Mars Rover, capable of learning and reasoning, with a goal of
discovering whether there was once life on Mars; then I expect it will
experience
pleasure in finding evidence regarding this. But no matter how smart I
make it, it
won't experience lust.
I'm curious what the literature has to say about that. And if
functionalism
means reproducing more than the mere functional output of a system, if
it
potentially means replication down to the elementary particles and
possibly
their quantum entanglements, then duplication becomes impossible, not
merely
technically but in principle. That seems against the whole point of
functionalism - as the idea of "function" is reduced to something almost
meaningless.
I think functionalism must be confined to the classical functions,
discounting the
quantum level effects. But it must include some behavior that is almost
entirely
internal - e.g. planning, imagining. Excluding quantum entanglements isn't
arbitrary; there cannot have been any evolution of goals and values based
on quantum
entanglement (beyond the statistical effects that produce decoherence and
quasi-classical behavior).
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
